"What is the Democrats' message?"

[Hutch Starskey]

The numbers illegally crossing has more than doubled since last year.
And lol at "right before". The election is SEVEN MONTHS AWAY. That is an eternity in politics.

Is trump lying again Gramps?
Is illegal immigration the lowest in 17 years, as Trump said? | PolitiFact
www.politifact.com/truth-o.../apr/.../illegal-immigration-lowest-17-years-trump-said/
Claim: Illegal immigration on the U.S.-Mexico border is "the lowest in 17 years."
Claimed by: Donald Trump
Fact check by PolitiFact: True

Feedback
Illegal Border Crossings Are Down, But Trump Still Exaggerates the ...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/12/.../trump-border-claim-factcheck.html
Oct 12, 2017 - Since taking office, President Trump has frequently claimed to have achieved large declines in illegal immigration across the Southwest border with Mexico, and the drop appear to grow with each mention. Mr. Trump has a point: Border crossings have gone down more during his administration. Yet he ...

there is good news
We have no problem on either border. The border crisis is steaming pile of bullshit that Trump supporters willingly eat in healthy portions. But we are talking about Trump supporters so that goes without saying.

Border crossings are at all time record lows. The reason the orange ass clown is pulling this stunt, and have no illusions in that pea little brain, it is a stunt, is because he lost his wall permanently. He lost funding for it in the last budget, and when Democrats control the House after November, there will never be another dime for any wall, so this is his attempt at keeping republicans engaged.

Everything's relative, I suppose, but 50,000 in a month is a lot of folks. Don't you think?

• The number of "illegal" crossing attempts at the U.S. Southwest border triple in March compared with a year ago, the government says.
• The number of crossing attempts last month grow 37 percent from February, setting a month-to-month record going back to 2011.
• Overall, government data show there were a total of 50,308 people last month that were apprehended or deemed as "inadmissible" at the border.
• The largest number of apprehensions is from the Rio Grande sector in Texas, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.

'Illegal' crossing attempts at US Southwest border triple in March from year ago

They were apprehended.

Yes, that's the good part. And to make sure it stays that way, if the National Guard needs to go down to do KP and change the sheets in the detention center, let 'em go. The Border Patrol seems to feel stretched thin. Don't blame them, with numbers like that.

I do believe that this is probably theatrics on Trump's part, to keep his base in a lather over the brown invasion--Ladies hold onto your pussies. The rapists are on the way. That's all garbage--but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that indeed it may be fewer folks than before, but a LOT of people are attempting to enter the country illegally. Not all of them got caught, you know.

Are they stretched thin?
50k seems like a lot but relative to what?
Rates were much higher in the past and continue to trend downward. Immigration has been a net negative for years.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is trump lying again Gramps?
Is illegal immigration the lowest in 17 years, as Trump said? | PolitiFact
www.politifact.com/truth-o.../apr/.../illegal-immigration-lowest-17-years-trump-said/
Claim: Illegal immigration on the U.S.-Mexico border is "the lowest in 17 years."
Claimed by: Donald Trump
Fact check by PolitiFact: True

Feedback
Illegal Border Crossings Are Down, But Trump Still Exaggerates the ...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/12/.../trump-border-claim-factcheck.html
Oct 12, 2017 - Since taking office, President Trump has frequently claimed to have achieved large declines in illegal immigration across the Southwest border with Mexico, and the drop appear to grow with each mention. Mr. Trump has a point: Border crossings have gone down more during his administration. Yet he ...

there is good news
We have no problem on either border. The border crisis is steaming pile of bullshit that Trump supporters willingly eat in healthy portions. But we are talking about Trump supporters so that goes without saying.

Border crossings are at all time record lows. The reason the orange ass clown is pulling this stunt, and have no illusions in that pea little brain, it is a stunt, is because he lost his wall permanently. He lost funding for it in the last budget, and when Democrats control the House after November, there will never be another dime for any wall, so this is his attempt at keeping republicans engaged.

Everything's relative, I suppose, but 50,000 in a month is a lot of folks. Don't you think?

• The number of "illegal" crossing attempts at the U.S. Southwest border triple in March compared with a year ago, the government says.
• The number of crossing attempts last month grow 37 percent from February, setting a month-to-month record going back to 2011.
• Overall, government data show there were a total of 50,308 people last month that were apprehended or deemed as "inadmissible" at the border.
• The largest number of apprehensions is from the Rio Grande sector in Texas, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.

'Illegal' crossing attempts at US Southwest border triple in March from year ago

They were apprehended.

Yes, that's the good part. And to make sure it stays that way, if the National Guard needs to go down to do KP and change the sheets in the detention center, let 'em go. The Border Patrol seems to feel stretched thin. Don't blame them, with numbers like that.

I do believe that this is probably theatrics on Trump's part, to keep his base in a lather over the brown invasion--Ladies hold onto your pussies. The rapists are on the way. That's all garbage--but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that indeed it may be fewer folks than before, but a LOT of people are attempting to enter the country illegally. Not all of them got caught, you know.

Are they stretched thin?
50k seems like a lot but relative to what?
Rates were much higher in the past and continue to trend downward. Immigration has been a net negative for years.

View attachment 186863

Relative to the fucking law.

Can I come rob you if I promise to take less than the average thief?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In a typical year, border crossings peak in the spring to early summer, as migrants crossfor outdoors work in construction and agriculture

So they know that an American company will break the law and hire them.

So I guess that's something that could be seriously addressed. Instead of, say, building a wall.
.

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

 

[ptbw forever]

In a typical year, border crossings peak in the spring to early summer, as migrants crossfor outdoors work in construction and agriculture

So they know that an American company will break the law and hire them.

So I guess that's something that could be seriously addressed. Instead of, say, building a wall.
.

Addressing that will do nothing without a wall.

Without a wall illegals will simply start their own businesses in the US and hire illegal employees in a sanctuary city or state.

Ending "sanctuaries" and building the wall is the only way to start actual border control.

Contrary to your beliefs, the immigration debate has always been centrists versus the furthest left.

 

[edward37]

there is good news
We have no problem on either border. The border crisis is steaming pile of bullshit that Trump supporters willingly eat in healthy portions. But we are talking about Trump supporters so that goes without saying.

Border crossings are at all time record lows. The reason the orange ass clown is pulling this stunt, and have no illusions in that pea little brain, it is a stunt, is because he lost his wall permanently. He lost funding for it in the last budget, and when Democrats control the House after November, there will never be another dime for any wall, so this is his attempt at keeping republicans engaged.

Everything's relative, I suppose, but 50,000 in a month is a lot of folks. Don't you think?

• The number of "illegal" crossing attempts at the U.S. Southwest border triple in March compared with a year ago, the government says.
• The number of crossing attempts last month grow 37 percent from February, setting a month-to-month record going back to 2011.
• Overall, government data show there were a total of 50,308 people last month that were apprehended or deemed as "inadmissible" at the border.
• The largest number of apprehensions is from the Rio Grande sector in Texas, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.

'Illegal' crossing attempts at US Southwest border triple in March from year ago

They were apprehended.

Yes, that's the good part. And to make sure it stays that way, if the National Guard needs to go down to do KP and change the sheets in the detention center, let 'em go. The Border Patrol seems to feel stretched thin. Don't blame them, with numbers like that.

I do believe that this is probably theatrics on Trump's part, to keep his base in a lather over the brown invasion--Ladies hold onto your pussies. The rapists are on the way. That's all garbage--but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that indeed it may be fewer folks than before, but a LOT of people are attempting to enter the country illegally. Not all of them got caught, you know.

Are they stretched thin?
50k seems like a lot but relative to what?
Rates were much higher in the past and continue to trend downward. Immigration has been a net negative for years.

View attachment 186863

Relative to the fucking law.

Can I come rob you if I promise to take less than the average thief?

you can if your name is trump

 

[Hutch Starskey]

there is good news
We have no problem on either border. The border crisis is steaming pile of bullshit that Trump supporters willingly eat in healthy portions. But we are talking about Trump supporters so that goes without saying.

Border crossings are at all time record lows. The reason the orange ass clown is pulling this stunt, and have no illusions in that pea little brain, it is a stunt, is because he lost his wall permanently. He lost funding for it in the last budget, and when Democrats control the House after November, there will never be another dime for any wall, so this is his attempt at keeping republicans engaged.

Everything's relative, I suppose, but 50,000 in a month is a lot of folks. Don't you think?

• The number of "illegal" crossing attempts at the U.S. Southwest border triple in March compared with a year ago, the government says.
• The number of crossing attempts last month grow 37 percent from February, setting a month-to-month record going back to 2011.
• Overall, government data show there were a total of 50,308 people last month that were apprehended or deemed as "inadmissible" at the border.
• The largest number of apprehensions is from the Rio Grande sector in Texas, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.

'Illegal' crossing attempts at US Southwest border triple in March from year ago

They were apprehended.

Yes, that's the good part. And to make sure it stays that way, if the National Guard needs to go down to do KP and change the sheets in the detention center, let 'em go. The Border Patrol seems to feel stretched thin. Don't blame them, with numbers like that.

I do believe that this is probably theatrics on Trump's part, to keep his base in a lather over the brown invasion--Ladies hold onto your pussies. The rapists are on the way. That's all garbage--but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that indeed it may be fewer folks than before, but a LOT of people are attempting to enter the country illegally. Not all of them got caught, you know.

Are they stretched thin?
50k seems like a lot but relative to what?
Rates were much higher in the past and continue to trend downward. Immigration has been a net negative for years.

View attachment 186863

Relative to the fucking law.

Can I come rob you if I promise to take less than the average thief?

there is good news
We have no problem on either border. The border crisis is steaming pile of bullshit that Trump supporters willingly eat in healthy portions. But we are talking about Trump supporters so that goes without saying.

Border crossings are at all time record lows. The reason the orange ass clown is pulling this stunt, and have no illusions in that pea little brain, it is a stunt, is because he lost his wall permanently. He lost funding for it in the last budget, and when Democrats control the House after November, there will never be another dime for any wall, so this is his attempt at keeping republicans engaged.

Everything's relative, I suppose, but 50,000 in a month is a lot of folks. Don't you think?

• The number of "illegal" crossing attempts at the U.S. Southwest border triple in March compared with a year ago, the government says.
• The number of crossing attempts last month grow 37 percent from February, setting a month-to-month record going back to 2011.
• Overall, government data show there were a total of 50,308 people last month that were apprehended or deemed as "inadmissible" at the border.
• The largest number of apprehensions is from the Rio Grande sector in Texas, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.

'Illegal' crossing attempts at US Southwest border triple in March from year ago

They were apprehended.

Yes, that's the good part. And to make sure it stays that way, if the National Guard needs to go down to do KP and change the sheets in the detention center, let 'em go. The Border Patrol seems to feel stretched thin. Don't blame them, with numbers like that.

I do believe that this is probably theatrics on Trump's part, to keep his base in a lather over the brown invasion--Ladies hold onto your pussies. The rapists are on the way. That's all garbage--but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that indeed it may be fewer folks than before, but a LOT of people are attempting to enter the country illegally. Not all of them got caught, you know.

Are they stretched thin?
50k seems like a lot but relative to what?
Rates were much higher in the past and continue to trend downward. Immigration has been a net negative for years.

View attachment 186863

Relative to the fucking law.

Can I come rob you if I promise to take less than the average thief?

Yes, they were apprehended, dope.

 

[edward37]

They told me
“They told me if I didn't vote for Trump our enemies would be emboldened--Assad would continue using chemical weapons, Putin would continue murdering people at home and abroad, and we'd have a president who, after Xi made himself dictator for life, would boast of their friendship.”

 

[Mac1958]

In a typical year, border crossings peak in the spring to early summer, as migrants crossfor outdoors work in construction and agriculture

So they know that an American company will break the law and hire them.

So I guess that's something that could be seriously addressed. Instead of, say, building a wall.
.

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In a typical year, border crossings peak in the spring to early summer, as migrants crossfor outdoors work in construction and agriculture

So they know that an American company will break the law and hire them.

So I guess that's something that could be seriously addressed. Instead of, say, building a wall.
.

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

 

[OldLady]

In a typical year, border crossings peak in the spring to early summer, as migrants crossfor outdoors work in construction and agriculture

So they know that an American company will break the law and hire them.

So I guess that's something that could be seriously addressed. Instead of, say, building a wall.
.

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In a typical year, border crossings peak in the spring to early summer, as migrants crossfor outdoors work in construction and agriculture

So they know that an American company will break the law and hire them.

So I guess that's something that could be seriously addressed. Instead of, say, building a wall.
.

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

 

[Mac1958]

So they know that an American company will break the law and hire them.

So I guess that's something that could be seriously addressed. Instead of, say, building a wall.
.

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

Great. That's not "enabling" illegal immigration. There aren't bands of liberals secretly guiding hordes of "illegals" through the desert.

Why was Obama referred to as the "deporter in chief"?

 

[Redfish]

You did not answer his very on topic question about tariffs on motorcycles.

It's irrelevant without understanding the rationale behind that deal.

the rationale????????? are you an idiot? to sell german motorcycles in Germany and keep Harley Davidson out of the German market.

Yes, rationale.

Why is that happening?

What precipitated that move?

Was Trump responsible?

that happened while your Kenyan messiah was president. Harley Davidson was trying successfully to sell in Europe, tariffs were put on them to stop those sales by making Harleys too expensive compared to European bikes.

No, dope.

I asked what the rationale for the tariffs were. Not bbbut....Obama.

how many times before it sinks in? Germany put tariffs on Harleys in order to make them prohibitively expensive for Germans to buy, so that German bikers would be forced to spend their money on German bikes.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Redfish]

Equal footing?

By pricing them out of the market?

So, it's not the same because Trump is too stupid to know he's doing it deliberately?
Got it?

you are making an invalid assumption that American companies need to sell in china in order to survive----------they don't. But Chinese companies do need to sell in America in order to survive. We have all the leverage in this, previous presidents just haven't had the balls to use it.

You're not very good at this after "40 years".
Invalid assumption?
You've been shown that China is the largest importer of soybeans. If they opt to get them cheaper from elsewhere, where are US farmers making up that lost market share?

true, and those American farmers may have to adapt to that changing market. Do you think American soil wont grow anything except soybeans?

How many Wal-Marts will have to shut down??

Thank you.
Yes. The nation's largest retail employer.

the big box stores are closing because of the number of people who are now buying on line and avoiding malls, parking, traffic, etc. It has nothing to do with Trump or tariffs.

 

[Redfish]

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

the left is doing this solely because they see them as a potential dem voting block. Dems and libs don't give a shit about illegals personally, they only pander to them because they think if they are legalized they will vote dem. That is all this is, and was ever, about.

 

[edward37]

you are making an invalid assumption that American companies need to sell in china in order to survive----------they don't. But Chinese companies do need to sell in America in order to survive. We have all the leverage in this, previous presidents just haven't had the balls to use it.

You're not very good at this after "40 years".
Invalid assumption?
You've been shown that China is the largest importer of soybeans. If they opt to get them cheaper from elsewhere, where are US farmers making up that lost market share?

true, and those American farmers may have to adapt to that changing market. Do you think American soil wont grow anything except soybeans?

How many Wal-Marts will have to shut down??

Thank you.
Yes. The nation's largest retail employer.

the big box stores are closing because of the number of people who are now buying on line and avoiding malls, parking, traffic, etc. It has nothing to do with Trump or tariffs.

oh ,nothing to do with most of wal-marts goods coming from china?

 

[Mac1958]

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

Great. That's not "enabling" illegal immigration. There aren't bands of liberals secretly guiding hordes of "illegals" through the desert.

Why was Obama referred to as the "deporter in chief"?

Illegals have one political party they trust more than the other. Which one do you suppose that is?
.

 

[Mac1958]

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

the left is doing this solely because they see them as a potential dem voting block. Dems and libs don't give a shit about illegals personally, they only pander to them because they think if they are legalized they will vote dem. That is all this is, and was ever, about.

Yes. So now it's up to the GOP to do something about it, or just give up.
.

 

[OldLady]

So they know that an American company will break the law and hire them.

So I guess that's something that could be seriously addressed. Instead of, say, building a wall.
.

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

I know that is the official posture. That is why I said "they are not technically doing anything illegal but they are coming damned close."
That would be like our prison not notifying another LE jurisdiction when an inmate with another sentence to serve in county is released. So the inmate would walk and it would be up to the other county to catch him if they can. How sensible is that? How many unnecessary man hours would be wasted on that maneuver? If we are serious about getting illegal immigration under control, we can't make it more difficult for ICE to do its job.