Democrats Deny These Immigration Truths

[danielpalos]

this is an express power: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Our welfare clause is General and we have a commerce clause.

We don't have a common defense issue on our border.

You’re not making any sense. Wtf are you talking about?

how dumb do we have to write it for the right wing?

Try making sense for a start. Wtf do welfare and commerce clauses have to do with our border? Or a common defense issue? With whom? Why would we need a common issue?

there is no wall building power.

Fortifying our borders is a government responsibility. I personally think they should simply mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Then sit back and watch the tacos fly!

Our welfare clause is General not Common. There is no express wall building power. We should be upgrading Ellis Island to accomplish the express powers delegated to our federal Government: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

 

[Taz]

You’re not making any sense. Wtf are you talking about?

how dumb do we have to write it for the right wing?

Try making sense for a start. Wtf do welfare and commerce clauses have to do with our border? Or a common defense issue? With whom? Why would we need a common issue?

there is no wall building power.

Fortifying our borders is a government responsibility. I personally think they should simply mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Then sit back and watch the tacos fly!

Our welfare clause is General not Common. There is no express wall building power. We should be upgrading Ellis Island to accomplish the express powers delegated to our federal Government: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

"Our welfare clause is General not Common." Why do you keep saying this? What's the relevance? What does it even fucking mean?

You want unlimited immigration, that'll doom our country, we're a dumb enough country as it is. And overpopulated. With imbeciles. Kinda like you.

 

[danielpalos]

how dumb do we have to write it for the right wing?

Try making sense for a start. Wtf do welfare and commerce clauses have to do with our border? Or a common defense issue? With whom? Why would we need a common issue?

there is no wall building power.

Fortifying our borders is a government responsibility. I personally think they should simply mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Then sit back and watch the tacos fly!

Our welfare clause is General not Common. There is no express wall building power. We should be upgrading Ellis Island to accomplish the express powers delegated to our federal Government: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

"Our welfare clause is General not Common." Why do you keep saying this? What's the relevance? What does it even fucking mean?

You want unlimited immigration, that'll doom our country, we're a dumb enough country as it is. And overpopulated. With imbeciles. Kinda like you.

a general power applies in this case, not a common power.

This is what Congress is supposed to be doing: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

There is no express wall building power. We should be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and generating revenue via our Commerce Clause.

 

[sealybobo]

What is it about securing our borders that you hate?

Don't you think a much more important question is: When does the wall idea along with its enforcement, not to mention lost Liberty become a valid topic for discussion?

Everybody wants a secure border. They also want Freedom and Liberty. So how much Liberty and how much Security? Those in favor of the wall would relinquish their Liberty and even accept gun control in exchange for the wall.

Correct. I want border security too I just don't think a wall to match Trump's ego is the right answer. In fact I know it's not.

But I don't mind putting our troops down on the border.

How does a wall affect your Liberty?

How does it NOT affect your Liberty?

1) Go back to my original post on this subject. The right was solidly against National ID prior to 9 / 11 and the subject of foreigners. The right is now THE voice for Orwellian surveillance and control

2) There is enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone

3) Employers are being threatened for hiring foreigners with the right claiming the foreigners are stealing our (sic) jobs. Your Liberty is dependent on the free market. The jobs are not yours. They belong to the person who creates them

4) Due to the people who began the wall rhetoric, private property owners are no longer allowed to defend their own private property

5) The forced use of National ID nullified the Fourth Amendment

6) The right is trying to imply one must be a citizen in order to have rights. If that is the case, the government is the entity which gives you your rights. That is clearly not what the founders said. Placing your rights into the hands of government means you may no longer claim them. They are mere privileges to be doled out by your government benefactors.

How many Liberties do you want me to list?

You sound like a Russian troll.

.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

 

[sealybobo]

Don’t all elected officials take an oath when they take office? And doesn’t this oath state that they will defend the constitution?


If that’s the case, why don’t the Dims want to defend this country against foreign invaders? Criminals who disobey the very laws they’ve enacted?

Now, Democrats are going to say, “Why is the government arresting hardworking immigrants? They are just seeking a better way of life.” Well, this is a simple, twofold answer. One, they are not here legally. Two, and just as important, they are taking jobs that hardworking Americans do not have access to.

Let’s hope that Trump is successful before Christmas in getting the wall funded. And let’s hope Congress finally gets its act together and remembers the meaning of that oath that they all took.

More @ Democrats Deny These Immigration Truths

Just to be clear, the ultra left wing liberals here who are defending illegal immigrants are not speaking for all of us liberals. And you Republicans might be surprised to know that us moderate liberals agree with you more than you know. In fact we were talking like you were talking in 2006 back when YOU guys were defending illegals. You, Bush, McCain and Romney were all saying JOBS AMERICANS WON'T DO.

Read the entire op ed. It was written in 2006. Back then we sounded a lot like Trump does today

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

 

[danielpalos]

Don't you think a much more important question is: When does the wall idea along with its enforcement, not to mention lost Liberty become a valid topic for discussion?

Everybody wants a secure border. They also want Freedom and Liberty. So how much Liberty and how much Security? Those in favor of the wall would relinquish their Liberty and even accept gun control in exchange for the wall.

Correct. I want border security too I just don't think a wall to match Trump's ego is the right answer. In fact I know it's not.

But I don't mind putting our troops down on the border.

How does a wall affect your Liberty?

How does it NOT affect your Liberty?

1) Go back to my original post on this subject. The right was solidly against National ID prior to 9 / 11 and the subject of foreigners. The right is now THE voice for Orwellian surveillance and control

2) There is enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone

3) Employers are being threatened for hiring foreigners with the right claiming the foreigners are stealing our (sic) jobs. Your Liberty is dependent on the free market. The jobs are not yours. They belong to the person who creates them

4) Due to the people who began the wall rhetoric, private property owners are no longer allowed to defend their own private property

5) The forced use of National ID nullified the Fourth Amendment

6) The right is trying to imply one must be a citizen in order to have rights. If that is the case, the government is the entity which gives you your rights. That is clearly not what the founders said. Placing your rights into the hands of government means you may no longer claim them. They are mere privileges to be doled out by your government benefactors.

How many Liberties do you want me to list?

You sound like a Russian troll.

.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation not a private sector obligation. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Don't you think a much more important question is: When does the wall idea along with its enforcement, not to mention lost Liberty become a valid topic for discussion?

Everybody wants a secure border. They also want Freedom and Liberty. So how much Liberty and how much Security? Those in favor of the wall would relinquish their Liberty and even accept gun control in exchange for the wall.

Correct. I want border security too I just don't think a wall to match Trump's ego is the right answer. In fact I know it's not.

But I don't mind putting our troops down on the border.

How does a wall affect your Liberty?

How does it NOT affect your Liberty?

1) Go back to my original post on this subject. The right was solidly against National ID prior to 9 / 11 and the subject of foreigners. The right is now THE voice for Orwellian surveillance and control

2) There is enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone

3) Employers are being threatened for hiring foreigners with the right claiming the foreigners are stealing our (sic) jobs. Your Liberty is dependent on the free market. The jobs are not yours. They belong to the person who creates them

4) Due to the people who began the wall rhetoric, private property owners are no longer allowed to defend their own private property

5) The forced use of National ID nullified the Fourth Amendment

6) The right is trying to imply one must be a citizen in order to have rights. If that is the case, the government is the entity which gives you your rights. That is clearly not what the founders said. Placing your rights into the hands of government means you may no longer claim them. They are mere privileges to be doled out by your government benefactors.

How many Liberties do you want me to list?

You sound like a Russian troll.

.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

You are not paying attention. Granted, I am not in favor of the conservatives solution, but I am equally opposed to the liberals solution as it is one and the same.

You are arguing for a wall on the pretext that it will prevent people from coming here. It will do no such thing. The United States is not Mexico, China, and we are not at war with the Israelis. So, the analogies made by the right don't fly.

Can you not understand that I agree there is a problem, but disagree with you on finding the right solution? How can that be so hard to understand? If you go back twenty years ago, the conservatives were AGAINST the NEW WORLD ORDER, One World Government, the surveillance society, National ID, the assaults on the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution Free Zone, the assaults on private property, massive record keeping, the government dictating to employers who they can and cannot hire, and the concept that humans derive their rights by way of government.

Today, the conservatives have gone 180 degrees opposite of what they believed in a mere 25 years ago. Yet 25 years ago, the conservatives were on a path to saving America. After 9 / 11 the liberals flipped the conservatives and conned the conservatives into taking up their battle cry. It was the wrong cry back then and it is the wrong cry today. The right is being played by the left with the left getting a double win in the process.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Correct. I want border security too I just don't think a wall to match Trump's ego is the right answer. In fact I know it's not.

But I don't mind putting our troops down on the border.

How does a wall affect your Liberty?

How does it NOT affect your Liberty?

1) Go back to my original post on this subject. The right was solidly against National ID prior to 9 / 11 and the subject of foreigners. The right is now THE voice for Orwellian surveillance and control

2) There is enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone

3) Employers are being threatened for hiring foreigners with the right claiming the foreigners are stealing our (sic) jobs. Your Liberty is dependent on the free market. The jobs are not yours. They belong to the person who creates them

4) Due to the people who began the wall rhetoric, private property owners are no longer allowed to defend their own private property

5) The forced use of National ID nullified the Fourth Amendment

6) The right is trying to imply one must be a citizen in order to have rights. If that is the case, the government is the entity which gives you your rights. That is clearly not what the founders said. Placing your rights into the hands of government means you may no longer claim them. They are mere privileges to be doled out by your government benefactors.

How many Liberties do you want me to list?

You sound like a Russian troll.

.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation not a private sector obligation. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

In order for that idea to work, the Citizenry must also carry a National ID Card. It's kind of like that guy that wanted people to have a tattoo so you'd know who they are.

 

[danielpalos]

How does it NOT affect your Liberty?

1) Go back to my original post on this subject. The right was solidly against National ID prior to 9 / 11 and the subject of foreigners. The right is now THE voice for Orwellian surveillance and control

2) There is enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone

3) Employers are being threatened for hiring foreigners with the right claiming the foreigners are stealing our (sic) jobs. Your Liberty is dependent on the free market. The jobs are not yours. They belong to the person who creates them

4) Due to the people who began the wall rhetoric, private property owners are no longer allowed to defend their own private property

5) The forced use of National ID nullified the Fourth Amendment

6) The right is trying to imply one must be a citizen in order to have rights. If that is the case, the government is the entity which gives you your rights. That is clearly not what the founders said. Placing your rights into the hands of government means you may no longer claim them. They are mere privileges to be doled out by your government benefactors.

How many Liberties do you want me to list?

You sound like a Russian troll.

.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation not a private sector obligation. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

In order for that idea to work, the Citizenry must also carry a National ID Card. It's kind of like that guy that wanted people to have a tattoo so you'd know who they are.

States have State ids. States should not be issuing State ids to foreign nationals.

 

[sealybobo]

Correct. I want border security too I just don't think a wall to match Trump's ego is the right answer. In fact I know it's not.

But I don't mind putting our troops down on the border.

How does a wall affect your Liberty?

How does it NOT affect your Liberty?

1) Go back to my original post on this subject. The right was solidly against National ID prior to 9 / 11 and the subject of foreigners. The right is now THE voice for Orwellian surveillance and control

2) There is enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone

3) Employers are being threatened for hiring foreigners with the right claiming the foreigners are stealing our (sic) jobs. Your Liberty is dependent on the free market. The jobs are not yours. They belong to the person who creates them

4) Due to the people who began the wall rhetoric, private property owners are no longer allowed to defend their own private property

5) The forced use of National ID nullified the Fourth Amendment

6) The right is trying to imply one must be a citizen in order to have rights. If that is the case, the government is the entity which gives you your rights. That is clearly not what the founders said. Placing your rights into the hands of government means you may no longer claim them. They are mere privileges to be doled out by your government benefactors.

How many Liberties do you want me to list?

You sound like a Russian troll.

.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation not a private sector obligation. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

What do you mean obligation? We are not obligated to take anyone into the union.

 

[sealybobo]

Correct. I want border security too I just don't think a wall to match Trump's ego is the right answer. In fact I know it's not.

But I don't mind putting our troops down on the border.

How does a wall affect your Liberty?

How does it NOT affect your Liberty?

1) Go back to my original post on this subject. The right was solidly against National ID prior to 9 / 11 and the subject of foreigners. The right is now THE voice for Orwellian surveillance and control

2) There is enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone

3) Employers are being threatened for hiring foreigners with the right claiming the foreigners are stealing our (sic) jobs. Your Liberty is dependent on the free market. The jobs are not yours. They belong to the person who creates them

4) Due to the people who began the wall rhetoric, private property owners are no longer allowed to defend their own private property

5) The forced use of National ID nullified the Fourth Amendment

6) The right is trying to imply one must be a citizen in order to have rights. If that is the case, the government is the entity which gives you your rights. That is clearly not what the founders said. Placing your rights into the hands of government means you may no longer claim them. They are mere privileges to be doled out by your government benefactors.

How many Liberties do you want me to list?

You sound like a Russian troll.

.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

You are not paying attention. Granted, I am not in favor of the conservatives solution, but I am equally opposed to the liberals solution as it is one and the same.

You are arguing for a wall on the pretext that it will prevent people from coming here. It will do no such thing. The United States is not Mexico, China, and we are not at war with the Israelis. So, the analogies made by the right don't fly.

Can you not understand that I agree there is a problem, but disagree with you on finding the right solution? How can that be so hard to understand? If you go back twenty years ago, the conservatives were AGAINST the NEW WORLD ORDER, One World Government, the surveillance society, National ID, the assaults on the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution Free Zone, the assaults on private property, massive record keeping, the government dictating to employers who they can and cannot hire, and the concept that humans derive their rights by way of government.

Today, the conservatives have gone 180 degrees opposite of what they believed in a mere 25 years ago. Yet 25 years ago, the conservatives were on a path to saving America. After 9 / 11 the liberals flipped the conservatives and conned the conservatives into taking up their battle cry. It was the wrong cry back then and it is the wrong cry today. The right is being played by the left with the left getting a double win in the process.

And you and I have a lot more in common and agree on a lot more than they want us to realize.

So instead of focusing on what we agree on they'll try to divide us. Look at the flaming liberal on this site. Apparently arguing for the illegals and suggesting what they are being used for isn't really hurting Americans.

 

[danielpalos]

How does it NOT affect your Liberty?

1) Go back to my original post on this subject. The right was solidly against National ID prior to 9 / 11 and the subject of foreigners. The right is now THE voice for Orwellian surveillance and control

2) There is enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone

3) Employers are being threatened for hiring foreigners with the right claiming the foreigners are stealing our (sic) jobs. Your Liberty is dependent on the free market. The jobs are not yours. They belong to the person who creates them

4) Due to the people who began the wall rhetoric, private property owners are no longer allowed to defend their own private property

5) The forced use of National ID nullified the Fourth Amendment

6) The right is trying to imply one must be a citizen in order to have rights. If that is the case, the government is the entity which gives you your rights. That is clearly not what the founders said. Placing your rights into the hands of government means you may no longer claim them. They are mere privileges to be doled out by your government benefactors.

How many Liberties do you want me to list?

You sound like a Russian troll.

.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation not a private sector obligation. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

What do you mean obligation? We are not obligated to take anyone into the union.

this is the actual power delegated to Congress: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

 

[sealybobo]

You sound like a Russian troll.

.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation not a private sector obligation. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

What do you mean obligation? We are not obligated to take anyone into the union.

this is the actual power delegated to Congress: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Yea, and to set the numbers at a reasonable level. So if we have too many people and not enough jobs, we don't take as many immigrants that year.

There job isn't to take in as many that want to come. They have the right to say no. We have the right to say no.

Just because dealing with immigration is a thing Congress has to deal with does not mean we are obligated to take anyone in. We could stop taking everyone in tomorrow.

For example, what if we took 10,000 people a year from West Africa. Would we have been obligated to take them in during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak?

Ah so what you are saying is that circumstances dictate how many we take in? Got it.

 

[danielpalos]

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation not a private sector obligation. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

What do you mean obligation? We are not obligated to take anyone into the union.

this is the actual power delegated to Congress: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Yea, and to set the numbers at a reasonable level. So if we have too many people and not enough jobs, we don't take as many immigrants that year.

There job isn't to take in as many that want to come. They have the right to say no. We have the right to say no.

Just because dealing with immigration is a thing Congress has to deal with does not mean we are obligated to take anyone in. We could stop taking everyone in tomorrow.

For example, what if we took 10,000 people a year from West Africa. Would we have been obligated to take them in during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak?

Ah so what you are saying is that circumstances dictate how many we take in? Got it.

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. why complain about refugees.

 

[hadit]

We don't have a common defense problem. The Proof is, we have Tax Cut economics not really really serious wartime tax rates.

Common with Messiko? Who fucking cares? People were pouring over our border, so we secured it. What’s the problem?

this is an express power: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Our welfare clause is General and we have a commerce clause.

We don't have a common defense issue on our border.

You’re not making any sense. Wtf are you talking about?

how dumb do we have to write it for the right wing?

Try making sense for a start. Wtf do welfare and commerce clauses have to do with our border? Or a common defense issue? With whom? Why would we need a common issue?

Welcome to Daniel's strange, strange world.

 

[sealybobo]

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation not a private sector obligation. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

What do you mean obligation? We are not obligated to take anyone into the union.

this is the actual power delegated to Congress: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Yea, and to set the numbers at a reasonable level. So if we have too many people and not enough jobs, we don't take as many immigrants that year.

There job isn't to take in as many that want to come. They have the right to say no. We have the right to say no.

Just because dealing with immigration is a thing Congress has to deal with does not mean we are obligated to take anyone in. We could stop taking everyone in tomorrow.

For example, what if we took 10,000 people a year from West Africa. Would we have been obligated to take them in during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak?

Ah so what you are saying is that circumstances dictate how many we take in? Got it.

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. why complain about refugees.

What are refugees? They seem to be people who aren't going through the normal channels of coming to this country. They claim it's too dangerous where they live? Then deal with it. Same with the arab men fleeing their countries and giving it all to the taliban, al queda and ISIS when they run. Stay and fight for your country.

Central America couldn’t take it anymore.” That’s how Ruben Figueroa describes the October exodus of thousands of people from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala fleeing north. “After decades of US intervention, chronic poverty, corruption, and structural violence, Central America just couldn’t take it.”

So every year we have to take in the ones who can't take it? How about they clean up the shit holes they come from and don't come here?

I'm a liberal but even I get it.

 

[sealybobo]

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation not a private sector obligation. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.

What do you mean obligation? We are not obligated to take anyone into the union.

this is the actual power delegated to Congress: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Yea, and to set the numbers at a reasonable level. So if we have too many people and not enough jobs, we don't take as many immigrants that year.

There job isn't to take in as many that want to come. They have the right to say no. We have the right to say no.

Just because dealing with immigration is a thing Congress has to deal with does not mean we are obligated to take anyone in. We could stop taking everyone in tomorrow.

For example, what if we took 10,000 people a year from West Africa. Would we have been obligated to take them in during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak?

Ah so what you are saying is that circumstances dictate how many we take in? Got it.

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. why complain about refugees.

What is Juan Orlando Hernández doing about the chronic poverty, corruption, and structural violence in his country? Why do we have to deal with the chronic poverty, corruption, and structural violence in Honduras?

 

[sealybobo]

Common with Messiko? Who fucking cares? People were pouring over our border, so we secured it. What’s the problem?

this is an express power: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Our welfare clause is General and we have a commerce clause.

We don't have a common defense issue on our border.

You’re not making any sense. Wtf are you talking about?

how dumb do we have to write it for the right wing?

Try making sense for a start. Wtf do welfare and commerce clauses have to do with our border? Or a common defense issue? With whom? Why would we need a common issue?

Welcome to Daniel's strange, strange world.

Now I see why you guys get so frustrated with liberals. Trust me we don't all defend sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

How does it NOT affect your Liberty?

1) Go back to my original post on this subject. The right was solidly against National ID prior to 9 / 11 and the subject of foreigners. The right is now THE voice for Orwellian surveillance and control

2) There is enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone

3) Employers are being threatened for hiring foreigners with the right claiming the foreigners are stealing our (sic) jobs. Your Liberty is dependent on the free market. The jobs are not yours. They belong to the person who creates them

4) Due to the people who began the wall rhetoric, private property owners are no longer allowed to defend their own private property

5) The forced use of National ID nullified the Fourth Amendment

6) The right is trying to imply one must be a citizen in order to have rights. If that is the case, the government is the entity which gives you your rights. That is clearly not what the founders said. Placing your rights into the hands of government means you may no longer claim them. They are mere privileges to be doled out by your government benefactors.

How many Liberties do you want me to list?

You sound like a Russian troll.

.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Remember everyone, Russia is on Trump's side in this discussion.

Employers should be threatened if they are hiring illegals. I've been saying for how long now it's not an illegal immigrant problem it's an illegal employer problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

I'm a very liberal person but you are now dug in to argue against anything the conservatives say.

Did you read the other op ed I posted the other day? I'll post the part I'm hoping you saw:

Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.

But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives."

There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart!

Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries.

What about caring for people in need? Isn't that the universal religious/ethical value? Of course.

A few years ago, when my family and I were visiting Europe, one of our children fell sick. A doctor came to the home of the people we were staying with, visited our child at 11 pm on a weeknight, left behind a course of antibiotics, and charged nothing. It was paid for by that nation's universal health care system. We should offer the same to any human being in need of medical care - a universal human right - in the United States.

But if I'd applied to that nation I was visiting for a monthly unemployment or retirement check, I would have been laughed out of the local government office. And if I'd been caught working there, I would have been deported within a week. Caring for people in crisis/need is very different from giving a job or a monthly welfare check to non-citizens. No nation - even those in Central and South America - will do that. And neither should the United States.

You are not paying attention. Granted, I am not in favor of the conservatives solution, but I am equally opposed to the liberals solution as it is one and the same.

You are arguing for a wall on the pretext that it will prevent people from coming here. It will do no such thing. The United States is not Mexico, China, and we are not at war with the Israelis. So, the analogies made by the right don't fly.

Can you not understand that I agree there is a problem, but disagree with you on finding the right solution? How can that be so hard to understand? If you go back twenty years ago, the conservatives were AGAINST the NEW WORLD ORDER, One World Government, the surveillance society, National ID, the assaults on the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution Free Zone, the assaults on private property, massive record keeping, the government dictating to employers who they can and cannot hire, and the concept that humans derive their rights by way of government.

Today, the conservatives have gone 180 degrees opposite of what they believed in a mere 25 years ago. Yet 25 years ago, the conservatives were on a path to saving America. After 9 / 11 the liberals flipped the conservatives and conned the conservatives into taking up their battle cry. It was the wrong cry back then and it is the wrong cry today. The right is being played by the left with the left getting a double win in the process.

And you and I have a lot more in common and agree on a lot more than they want us to realize.

So instead of focusing on what we agree on they'll try to divide us. Look at the flaming liberal on this site. Apparently arguing for the illegals and suggesting what they are being used for isn't really hurting Americans.

Nobody is taking advantage of foreign laborers. They do hard work at a cheap price. We cannot point a finger at profiteers and complain. Those of us, myself included, buy products and use services wherein foreign labor is utilized. Do we make our buying decisions based upon the legal issue of someone's immigration status?

The liberals may try to divide people like you and I. The conservatives will scream that I'm a liberal because the wall is not the only solution we should discuss.

Personally, I'm mad because it's been arranged so that many Americans are locked out of the job market and they're being programmed, Pavlovian style, to be dependent upon government until their demise.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

this is an express power: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Our welfare clause is General and we have a commerce clause.

We don't have a common defense issue on our border.

You’re not making any sense. Wtf are you talking about?

how dumb do we have to write it for the right wing?

Try making sense for a start. Wtf do welfare and commerce clauses have to do with our border? Or a common defense issue? With whom? Why would we need a common issue?

Welcome to Daniel's strange, strange world.

Now I see why you guys get so frustrated with liberals. Trust me we don't all defend sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants.

Why does it matter whether or not a state allows foreigners to come and go? It should encourage us to force Congress to turn welfare over to the states. That way, if California wants to be a sanctuary state and they can afford it, that is their business.

The next step we should take is to make sure that the benefits and privileges like welfare, education, etc. are benefits of citizenship and the government cannot dole that money to out to ANY non-citizen.