Question for those that support sanctuary cities/states.

[Liquid Reigns]

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

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

 

[Humorme]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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

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

The Statue of Liberty says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border

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

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

Fair enough. From your source:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Slyhunter]

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




What kind of retarded thinking is that?


They cross our borders illegally they are criminals


They over stay their visas they are criminals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's so complicated about it in your mind?

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

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

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

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

History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KissMy]

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

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

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

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

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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

Not even in right wing, Right to Work States?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humorme]

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

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

The Statue of Liberty says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They mistake regulation for citizenship.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

The Statue of Liberty says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They mistake regulation for citizenship.

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

 

[Humorme]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's so complicated about it in your mind?

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

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

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

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

History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humorme]

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

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

The Statue of Liberty says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They mistake regulation for citizenship.

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

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

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.

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

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

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

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

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

 

[Humorme]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

The Statue of Liberty says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They mistake regulation for citizenship.

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

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

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.

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

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

 

[Humorme]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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

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

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

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

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

yauranidiot

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

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humorme]

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

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

The Statue of Liberty says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They mistake regulation for citizenship.

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

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

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed," Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.

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

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

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

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

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

When it comes to immigration, the Constitution provides:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article 1 Section 8

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

Let's examine the facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

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

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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

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

The Statue of Liberty says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They mistake regulation for citizenship.

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

 

[danielpalos]

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