Illegals and the Scream that they are Hurting America.

[Stryder50]

Those lawns aren’t going to mow themselves.

I mow my own. I see lots of non-Hispanic mowing others. When those robomowers aren't doing it.

 

[pknopp]

Where?
Cite Article, Section, and paragraph (show).

The Source of the Federal Government’s Power to Regulate Immigration and Asylum Law | Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

Article 1 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

This is why Sheriff Arpaio was found guilty. He was told he could NOT enforce immigration.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...iff-joe-arpaio-convicted-of-criminal-contempt

 

[pknopp]

And consumers clamor for cheaper prices.
All costs are borne by the customer/consumer.
Are you ready to pay double what you do now so labor can be paid quite more?

I would not have to pay double but you go ahead and continue to practice your double speak. Pretend you want illegal immigration addressed but then note how you aren't interested in the results of that happening.

Pretty typical. All you care about is your politics.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Source of the Federal Government’s Power to Regulate Immigration and Asylum Law | Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

Article 1 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

This is why Sheriff Arpaio was found guilty. He was told he could NOT enforce immigration.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...iff-joe-arpaio-convicted-of-criminal-contempt

why are you leaving out the part of the constitution where it requires they secure the borders??

your link doesnt even apply since theres no laws giving these people legal entry,,

the executive branch has just stop repelling entry and allowed them to basically walk into the country where every they want to go,,

 

[pknopp]

why are you leaving out the part of the constitution where it requires they secure the borders??

your link doesnt even apply since theres no laws giving these people legal entry,

No one has argued there is any that grant legal entry so I have no idea what your point there is supposed to be.

The Founders did grant just anyone legal entry. There was nothing curtailing any of it.

the executive branch has just stop repelling entry and allowed them to basically walk into the country where every they want to go,,

Their jobs await.

 

[Stryder50]

Yes they can. We have covered this 500 times.

Why do you continue to deny U.S. law is U.S. law.


Can I Still Apply for Asylum Even if I Am in the United States Illegally?
Yes. You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:

You are not currently in removal proceedings

You file an asylum application within 1 year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.

Questions and Answers: Affirmative Asylum Eligibility and Applications | USCIS

You may not like it but there it is (again).

Right at the top of your link:
ALERT: Court Order on Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Final Rule
On Aug. 3, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s order in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 18-cv-06810 (N.D. Cal.), vacating the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (CLP) rule. At this time and while the stay remains in place, USCIS will continue to apply the CLP rule.
Under the rule, certain individuals who enter the United States through its southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders are presumed to be ineligible for asylum, unless they can demonstrate an exception to the rule or rebut the presumption. Individuals are encouraged to use lawful, safe, and orderly pathways to come to the United States.

And as for that imbedded link to CLP rule;

AGENCY:​

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security; Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments on expanded applicability in maritime context.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are issuing a final rule in anticipation of a potential surge of migration at the southwest border (“SWB”) of the United States following the termination of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (“CDC”) public health Order. The rule encourages migrants to avail themselves of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, or otherwise to seek asylum or other protection in another country through which they travel, thereby reducing reliance on human smuggling networks that exploit migrants for financial gain. The rule does so by introducing a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility for certain noncitizens who neither avail themselves of a lawful, safe, and orderly pathway to the United States nor seek asylum or other protection in a country through which they travel. In the absence of such a measure, which would apply only to those who enter at the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders during a limited, specified date range, the number of migrants expected to travel without authorization to the United States would be expected to increase significantly, to a level that risks undermining the Departments' continued ability to safely, effectively, and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law, including the asylum system, in the face of exceptionally challenging circumstances. Coupled with an expansion of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, the Departments expect the rule to lead to a reduction in the number of migrants who seek to cross the SWB without authorization to enter, thereby reducing the reliance by migrants on dangerous human smuggling networks, protecting against extreme overcrowding in border facilities, and helping to ensure that the processing of migrants seeking protection in the United States is done in an effective, humane, and efficient manner. In addition, the Departments are requesting comment on whether applicability of the rebuttable presumption should be extended to noncitizens who enter the United States without documents sufficient for lawful admission during the same temporary time period at a maritime border.

DATES:
Effective date: This rule is effective on May 11, 2023.

 

[progressive hunter]

No one has argued there is any that grant legal entry so I have no idea what your point there is supposed to be.

The Founders did grant just anyone legal entry. There was nothing curtailing any of it.




Their jobs await.

the constitution curtails that when it requires a secure border,,

 

[Stryder50]

The Source of the Federal Government’s Power to Regulate Immigration and Asylum Law | Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

Article 1 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

This is why Sheriff Arpaio was found guilty. He was told he could NOT enforce immigration.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...iff-joe-arpaio-convicted-of-criminal-contempt

Then cite the "

uniform rule of naturalization.

from Congress

 

[Stryder50]

I would not have to pay double but you go ahead and continue to practice your double speak. Pretend you want illegal immigration addressed but then note how you aren't interested in the results of that happening.

Pretty typical. All you care about is your politics.

In many markets/products labor costs are a major factor in costs to the consumers.
Call it 25 % more or 50% more if you like. You will be the one paying that price and are you willing to do so?

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

As for politics, it's how we set rules and manage the economy, so everything eventually boils down to politics.

 

[pknopp]

Right at the top of your link:
ALERT: Court Order on Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Final Rule
On Aug. 3, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s order in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 18-cv-06810 (N.D. Cal.), vacating the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (CLP) rule. At this time and while the stay remains in place, USCIS will continue to apply the CLP rule.
Under the rule, certain individuals who enter the United States through its southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders are presumed to be ineligible for asylum, unless they can demonstrate an exception to the rule or rebut the presumption. Individuals are encouraged to use lawful, safe, and orderly pathways to come to the United States.

And as for that imbedded link to CLP rule;

AGENCY:​

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security; Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments on expanded applicability in maritime context.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are issuing a final rule in anticipation of a potential surge of migration at the southwest border (“SWB”) of the United States following the termination of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (“CDC”) public health Order. The rule encourages migrants to avail themselves of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, or otherwise to seek asylum or other protection in another country through which they travel, thereby reducing reliance on human smuggling networks that exploit migrants for financial gain. The rule does so by introducing a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility for certain noncitizens who neither avail themselves of a lawful, safe, and orderly pathway to the United States nor seek asylum or other protection in a country through which they travel. In the absence of such a measure, which would apply only to those who enter at the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders during a limited, specified date range, the number of migrants expected to travel without authorization to the United States would be expected to increase significantly, to a level that risks undermining the Departments' continued ability to safely, effectively, and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law, including the asylum system, in the face of exceptionally challenging circumstances. Coupled with an expansion of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, the Departments expect the rule to lead to a reduction in the number of migrants who seek to cross the SWB without authorization to enter, thereby reducing the reliance by migrants on dangerous human smuggling networks, protecting against extreme overcrowding in border facilities, and helping to ensure that the processing of migrants seeking protection in the United States is done in an effective, humane, and efficient manner. In addition, the Departments are requesting comment on whether applicability of the rebuttable presumption should be extended to noncitizens who enter the United States without documents sufficient for lawful admission during the same temporary time period at a maritime border.

DATES:
Effective date: This rule is effective on May 11, 2023.

Nothing precludes them from coming. It's all up to the immigration courts.

 

[pknopp]

the constitution curtails that when it requires a secure border,,

And it doesn't.

 

[pknopp]

Then cite the "

from Congress

Read.

 

[Stryder50]

Nothing precludes them from coming. It's all up to the immigration courts.

Larger issue is them staying.
What I presented explains that.
Just because they got here doesn't mean they get to stay here.

 

[pknopp]

In many markets/products labor costs are a major factor in costs to the consumers.
Call it 25 % more or 50% more if you like. You will be the one paying that price and are you willing to do so?

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

As for politics, it's how we set rules and manage the economy, so everything eventually boils down to politics.

I disagree.

 

[pknopp]

Larger issue is them staying.
What I presented explains that.
Just because they got here doesn't mean they get to stay here.

It doesn't. I never said it did. I said NO politician is going to actually do anything about it.

 

[progressive hunter]

I disagree.

doesnt mean hes wrong,,

 

[progressive hunter]

It doesn't. I never said it did. I said NO politician is going to actually do anything about it.

so you admit you know its government not doing their job,,

 

[Leo123]

I have YET to be adversely affected by an illegal, from ANY Country.

USA has jobs that the GOP white lazy ass will never do, but deem necessary by such, but bitch about losing jobs to these illegal for a job they would NEVER accept.

1). GOP/Conservatives/RWI's......are you going to pick the fields? Hell No.

2). Are you going to clean the resorts/hotels/motels that rich white Americans visit? Hell No.

Which one of you RWI posters here, that constantly bitch about illegal immigrants, has had a job stolen by one of these illegals?

My guess is ZERO/NONE.
If so, name the job you wanted but was denied.

Yeah because everyone knows that if Winnie doesn't personally experience it why then, it didn't happen!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yes. As the alternative to addressing business. As long as we refuse to do that I support them coming by the millions.

Why did Newsom give illegals free unemployment and free healthcare except to attract more?

 

[Harry Dresden]

But humans have to herd the cows into stalls and hook those machines to the cows

the dairy farm that was on a discovery show about dairy farming the farmer says he and his wife and the machines do all 300 of his cows .....i didnt see any brown people there....