What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[Cellblock2429]

And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.

Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.

Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls. Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote. Your motive is clear

What a shocking revaluation. Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters. Donald Trump does it all. He calls them rapist and murders. Says migrants come from shit hole countries. Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."

/——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.

I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders. Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing. If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders.

So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have no responsibility for what's going on? They allow this to happen. They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault.

What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border? You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them?

Of course it would be our fault. We helped these people get to that border. We didn't stop them, we didn't try.

The Mexican government turned back 400 people at the border because they were not allowed to enter Mexico.

The Mexican government allowed the remainder to enter Mexico legally. The government had no legal grounds to stop them from traveling to the US border to petition for asylum. The government did not transport, lodge or feed them. Private organizations helped them and in some towns, food and lodging was provided by the people.

It appears the only people that encouraged any criminal act were border guards that refused to let petitioners put foot on US soil to petition for asylum leaving them no choice but to unlawfully enter the country.

I hope you're not saying Mexico allowing asylum seekers to petition the US is why they should pay for a 20 billion wall to protect the Unities States. That's pretty far fetched.

Regardless of any action of Mexico, it is the responsibility of the US to protect it's border and certainly not Mexico's responsibility. Asking the Mexican goverment to protect the US border is completely insane.

It appears Trump is trying to work some deal with Mexico so they will stop asylum seekers who can enter Mexico legally at Guatemalan border. Hopefully, Mexico will give him the big FU.

/——/ You’re just making stuff up. Mexico has every legal right to stop anyone from entering their country for any reason. Your entire post is pure conjecture and wishful thinking.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.

Except these people aren't looking for welfare. They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.

Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.

So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants. Typical leftist thinking all the way. Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.

Let capitalism do the work. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.

The shortsighted GOP ones...

/——-/ And you long sighted commie libs see forced minimum wage as a good thing? Wowza.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...

The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.

Trump shouldn't let them do that. Asylum is what you seek to escape extreme danger from your government be it harm to you, your family or even death. Once they set foot in Mexico, that goal was already achieved. There is no need to come here.

How many "asylum seekers" fit that criteria?

No, the criteria for asylum is
having suffered persecution or fear that the petitioner will suffer persecution due to:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Membership in a particular social group
• Political opinion

The decision to grant asylum is based on the story the petitioner tell in the 12 page petition, the interview, and the court appearance and what facts can be confirmed. If they are granted asylum, they enter the refugee program while their background is checked.

Mexican law prevent them from offering permanent residence, however some will be offered refugee status which unlike the US is not permanent residence. I don't know if Mexico offers asylum.

/——-/
In 2017, 14,596 people asked for asylum in Mexico, a 66% increase over 2016. Of those, 1,907 requests were approved in 2017.

The 2017 increase was fueled in part by a spike in asylum requests from Venezuelans. Requests from El Salvador and Honduras rose by only about 9%.
Mexico fails to offer migrants asylum, Amnesty International reports

 

[sparky]

We helped 500,000 kids end their existence for the sake of democracy building in the M.E.

So the answer to the OP's query is, there is no limit of human sacrifice pursuant to our doctrine

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks. If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.

What a load of crap.

If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.

Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.

What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now. However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment. Trump did so as deterrent. He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.

In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back. If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year. If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months. What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.

We created family detention center so families could be kept together. There's no reason why we should not use them.

Correct. Don't create any kind of deterrent, and that will solve the problem.

We have a deterrent. It's called deportation. A few years ago we worked with the Mexican government to provide information to dissuade would be illegal immigrants from crossing the border. This booklets was available at consultant offices and post offices. It apparent was working. However, today the hatred Trump stirred up between the US and Mexico makes any cooperation unlikely.

And you really believe that? Ask yourself: what does Mexico have to lose by allowing their people over here, and then ask yourself, what do they have to gain?

Lord knows how many millions of dollars cross that border every year from legals and illegals working here and sending money home. That's great for the Mexican economy. Why would any authority in Mexico want to stop that?

Whatever happened between DumBama and the Mexican government was all for show, just like with Iran. It didn't accomplish anything.

 

[sparky]

Of course there's a relationship


We give them guns, they give us coke & kids


~S~

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.

Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.

Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls. Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote. Your motive is clear

What a shocking revaluation. Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters. Donald Trump does it all. He calls them rapist and murders. Says migrants come from shit hole countries. Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."

/——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.

I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders. Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing. If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders.

So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have no responsibility for what's going on? They allow this to happen. They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault.

What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border? You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them?

Of course it would be our fault. We helped these people get to that border. We didn't stop them, we didn't try.

The Mexican government turned back 400 people at the border because they were not allowed to enter Mexico.

The Mexican government allowed the remainder to enter Mexico legally. The government had no legal grounds to stop them from traveling to the US border to petition for asylum. The government did not transport, lodge or feed them. Private organizations helped them and in some towns, food and lodging was provided by the people.

It appears the only people that encouraged any criminal act were border guards that refused to let petitioners put foot on US soil to petition for asylum leaving them no choice but to unlawfully enter the country.

I hope you're not saying Mexico allowing asylum seekers to petition the US is why they should pay for a 20 billion wall to protect the Unities States. That's pretty far fetched.

Regardless of any action of Mexico, it is the responsibility of the US to protect it's border and certainly not Mexico's responsibility. Asking the Mexican goverment to protect the US border is completely insane.

It appears Trump is trying to work some deal with Mexico so they will stop asylum seekers who can enter Mexico legally at Guatemalan border. Hopefully, Mexico will give him the big FU.

The Mexican border is Mexico's and the US. We are both responsible for it. We knew about these asylum seekers two weeks before they got here. Their journey was covered by the media almost daily. So don't tell me Mexico didn't know a thing about it. They let those people into their country for the sole purpose to get to the United States.

At this point I don't care who pays for the wall, just as long as it's built. These people would have never been able to enter this country except through legal ports if we had the wall this year.

 

[candycorn]

Have you/will you gone/go into a chicano bar and called the bartender a beaner and shown how much you love the race?

Are you going to dodge the question or answer it?

I recall I asked you question several times that you did provided answer to.

You don't get to ask me anything until you do so. Capisce?

Cmon...beaner is a term of endearment right?

Sack up, find some manhood and call a Mexican a beaner to his face. Then get ready for a nice warm hug.....

Kinda, just as they call us "burgers". It's not a racist term.

BTW, when will you answer the freaking question?

Oh, you're leftist loser, and you don't do that.

The same time you answer the question..if “beaner” is such a term of endearment, have you belled up to a Chicano bar and called the tender a “beaner” to his face?

I asked you a question several times and you dodged every time. Then you asked me a question and demand I answer it immediately, and claimed I am dodging it.

I explained it to you, it's not how it works. Normal people live and learn. It seems you just live.

lol.... again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, would you call a white person a beaner? A black person a beaner? An Asian person a "beaner"? Of course not. Only Hispanics get called that particular racial slur.

Why you can't wrap your head around this simple fact and keep asking questions like "what race is Mexican" is just a sign of your continued and profound dishonesty and is the hallmark of all Trump supporters when you go one degree deep with them: dishonesty and "whataboutism"

 

[Cellblock2429]

We helped 500,000 kids end their existence for the sake of democracy building in the M.E.

So the answer to the OP's query is, there is no limit of human sacrifice pursuant to our doctrine

/———/ Wowza. Good thing we don’t live in a democracy

 

[JoeB131]

As a typical leftist, I know you have no respect for our Constitution, especially the part that says nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. But if you are forced by law to participate in a ritual against your religion beliefs, then that part of the Constitution is violated.

Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work.

If a person who owns a bakery shop decides he doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, then that's his option. If he works for somebody and is told he has to make the cake, then he has to weigh his religious values. Take the job or don't take the job.

So you are all for religious rights for business OWNERS, not employees.

Man, you are a battered housewife Republican, aren't you?

Cab drivers work for cab companies. They know ahead of time that it's just about the only way to travel in places like NYC. So there will be times they have to transport a pet, especially if the animal is there to assist in a handicap like a seeing eye dog.

But by your own logic, if someone has a religious right to refuse to do their jobs, they should have every right to keep an animal out of their cabs.

And sorry, the "Service Animal" rule has been so abused at this point, it's pretty meaningless.

Pretty much any asshole puts a vest on their dog, and it's service animal.

 

[sparky]

As a typical leftist, I know you have no respect for our Constitution, especially the part that says nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. But if you are forced by law to participate in a ritual against your religion beliefs, then that part of the Constitution is violated.

Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work.

View attachment 200665

If a person who owns a bakery shop decides he doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, then that's his option. If he works for somebody and is told he has to make the cake, then he has to weigh his religious values. Take the job or don't take the job.

So you are all for religious rights for business OWNERS, not employees.

Man, you are a battered housewife Republican, aren't you?

Cab drivers work for cab companies. They know ahead of time that it's just about the only way to travel in places like NYC. So there will be times they have to transport a pet, especially if the animal is there to assist in a handicap like a seeing eye dog.

But by your own logic, if someone has a religious right to refuse to do their jobs, they should have every right to keep an animal out of their cabs.

And sorry, the "Service Animal" rule has been so abused at this point, it's pretty meaningless.

Pretty much any asshole puts a vest on their dog, and it's service animal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work.

The Constitution doesn't have exceptions to rights. Those rights are for anybody in this country particularly citizens.

So you are all for religious rights for business OWNERS, not employees.

Man, you are a battered housewife Republican, aren't you?

If a business owner is being persecuted by our government, that's what the Constitution prohibits. If your boss tells you to do something against your religious beliefs and fires you, it's the business owner that persecuted you.

The Constitution was not written to protect you from everything, it was written to protect you from government. I can't go to my boss tomorrow, tell him to F himself, and if he fires me, claim my freedom of speech was violated. That's because the Constitution was not written for me to have rights against my employer.

But by your own logic, if someone has a religious right to refuse to do their jobs, they should have every right to keep an animal out of their cabs.

And sorry, the "Service Animal" rule has been so abused at this point, it's pretty meaningless.

Pretty much any asshole puts a vest on their dog, and it's service animal.

Joe, it's so obvious that you make shit up on the spot. WTF ever heard of service animal abuse?

 

[Cellblock2429]

As a typical leftist, I know you have no respect for our Constitution, especially the part that says nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. But if you are forced by law to participate in a ritual against your religion beliefs, then that part of the Constitution is violated.

Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work.

View attachment 200665

If a person who owns a bakery shop decides he doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, then that's his option. If he works for somebody and is told he has to make the cake, then he has to weigh his religious values. Take the job or don't take the job.

So you are all for religious rights for business OWNERS, not employees.

Man, you are a battered housewife Republican, aren't you?

Cab drivers work for cab companies. They know ahead of time that it's just about the only way to travel in places like NYC. So there will be times they have to transport a pet, especially if the animal is there to assist in a handicap like a seeing eye dog.

But by your own logic, if someone has a religious right to refuse to do their jobs, they should have every right to keep an animal out of their cabs.

And sorry, the "Service Animal" rule has been so abused at this point, it's pretty meaningless.

Pretty much any asshole puts a vest on their dog, and it's service animal.

/——-/ Maybe Sarah can sue like the Gaye couple
Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant because she works for Trump

 

[JoeB131]

But they are all against the law and have a penalty to pay if you get caught.

A penalty that usually doesn't involve having your kids thrown into a cage.

In fact, when you do these things, you usually get released that night.

That's because a majority of managers, bosses and company owners are white. You're talking about the law of odds here.

No, I'm talking about who I should really be upset about. Illegal aliens have no effect on my life. Rich guys fucking with me does.

Maybe if we had more women and minority managers, we would see the assclownery we have. But I'd be happy with strong unions protecting workers rights from abuse.

It's not my lack of initiative, it's that ugly commie you helped put in the white house. Until that time, every job I worked had health insurance. Today, no company I contacted for a job carries it any longer. It's not my lack of initiative that caused this problem.

Guy, first you need to stop looking for jobs on Craig's List. Craig's list only has the fly by night half-ass companies on it. You know, like the one Kaz runs. He probably gets his employees from Craig's List.

If you want to get a real job, you need to look on Indeed. In fact, I typed in "Truck Driver" and Cleveland, and the first job that came up offered medical. oNly pay's 20.26 an hour... but it has medical.

Second one I looked at, pays 55K a year and has medical...

Hmmmm....

Now the Second thing you need to do is get a decent resume. Not that I'd want to do that, and I can't think of any of my competitors I dislike enough to wish you upon. I did a quick google search and found about 10 resume writers in Cleveland...

 

[sparky]

The Constitution doesn't have exceptions to rights

Yes it does

It's called the Patriot Act

~S~

 

[JoeB131]

If a business owner is being persecuted by our government, that's what the Constitution prohibits. If your boss tells you to do something against your religious beliefs and fires you, it's the business owner that persecuted you.

The Constitution was not written to protect you from everything, it was written to protect you from government. I can't go to my boss tomorrow, tell him to F himself, and if he fires me, claim my freedom of speech was violated. That's because the Constitution was not written for me to have rights against my employer.

Okay, you see, if the law applies equally to everyone, then it's not an abuse.

You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays.

Joe, it's so obvious that you make shit up on the spot. WTF ever heard of service animal abuse?

Sorry, I can't be responsible for your ignorance. YOu need to get out more. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people who are clearly NOT disabled bringing their dogs into a public place.

Service Animal Scams: A Growing Problem

I also discovered a host of dubious service and emotional support animal "registries." For example, the United States Dog Registry will certify any dog as a “service dog” or a "therapy dog" for $58, and an outfit called ESA of America will happily certify your pet rat, hamster, or iguana as an “emotional support animal.” (Sample ESA customer testimonial–“I have now taken 3 flights with my dog, and the peace of mind of being able to just pack up and go anywhere I want with him is the greatest thing ever.")

Then I began to ask around about bogus assistance animals and immediately began to hear stories. A high profile animal activist confessed to me that several of his friends had purchased phony service vests so they could take their pets into restaurants (he refuses to go out to eat with those friends anymore). And my daughter told me about a woman she knows who got a free flight for her dog to Southeast Asia by having a social worker pal write letter a saying the pet provided her with emotional support (while the ruse worked, the dog did have to wear a canine diaper on the trip).

 

[JoeB131]

So your bull shit aside, what's your second job?

Don't have one. Make plenty of money writing resumes, and was able to get a good deal on personal health insurance. Didn't even have to tap into an ACA plan.

But do keep fantasizing about my personal life, buddy... it's so adorable, but the neighbors have been complaining about the tissues you've been leaving in the bushes.

 

[JoeB131]

The leftists had an opportunity to address issue of separating children from parents and they did nothing. The media had an opportunity to report on this issue in the last decade (especially when Breitbart did it in 2014) and they did nothing.

The thing was, in 2014, they changed the policy to releasing people on their own recognizance. Trump is the one who decided to start putting people in cages again.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If a business owner is being persecuted by our government, that's what the Constitution prohibits. If your boss tells you to do something against your religious beliefs and fires you, it's the business owner that persecuted you.

The Constitution was not written to protect you from everything, it was written to protect you from government. I can't go to my boss tomorrow, tell him to F himself, and if he fires me, claim my freedom of speech was violated. That's because the Constitution was not written for me to have rights against my employer.

Okay, you see, if the law applies equally to everyone, then it's not an abuse.

You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays.

Joe, it's so obvious that you make shit up on the spot. WTF ever heard of service animal abuse?

Sorry, I can't be responsible for your ignorance. YOu need to get out more. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people who are clearly NOT disabled bringing their dogs into a public place.

Service Animal Scams: A Growing Problem

I also discovered a host of dubious service and emotional support animal "registries." For example, the United States Dog Registry will certify any dog as a “service dog” or a "therapy dog" for $58, and an outfit called ESA of America will happily certify your pet rat, hamster, or iguana as an “emotional support animal.” (Sample ESA customer testimonial–“I have now taken 3 flights with my dog, and the peace of mind of being able to just pack up and go anywhere I want with him is the greatest thing ever.")

Then I began to ask around about bogus assistance animals and immediately began to hear stories. A high profile animal activist confessed to me that several of his friends had purchased phony service vests so they could take their pets into restaurants (he refuses to go out to eat with those friends anymore). And my daughter told me about a woman she knows who got a free flight for her dog to Southeast Asia by having a social worker pal write letter a saying the pet provided her with emotional support (while the ruse worked, the dog did have to wear a canine diaper on the trip).

/----/ "You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays. " But you can refuse service to a woman because you don't like her boss.
FYI "religous" is spelt religious.

 

[JoeB131]

And continued advocacy by White Folk, FOR White Folk, will ensure that they CONTINUE to have all the advantages.

Until we are a minority in this country, then we are kind of in for it.

Hey, here's a crazy idea.. how about we actually have equality for all, so when we ARE a minority, they really can't excuse doing to us the same shit we've been doing to them?

Naw... that would actually, you know, be a decent thing to do.

Well, I'll probably be dead by then, so I don't care.