The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Sanguine on June 18, 2018, 11:01:03 pm
-
Cruz's Protect Kids and Parents Act would require the federal government to keep immigrant families together "absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children."
by Abby Livingston June 18, 2018 5:13 PM
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz announced emergency legislation Monday evening to keep immigrant families together after they cross the border into the United States.
The legislation follows comments Cruz made on Saturday that essentially called for more resources to adjudicate asylum claims. He also called for keeping immigrant kids with their parents as long as those adults are not associated with criminal activity.
....
The provisions of the legislation, according to the news release, include:...
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/18/ted-cruz-immigrant-families-together-border-texas/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/18/ted-cruz-immigrant-families-together-border-texas/)
-
Bueno.
-
So, we go the way of Rome, and Europe.
Let the mongrel hordes and barbarians in through the gates and pay for them to live here and eat out of our substance and be provided a living from our taxed labor.
No need to insist they follow the laws or our language and culture.
We are committing national suicide for the sake of replacing the existing population with more pliant slaves.
-
So, we go the way of Rome, and Europe.
Let the mongrel hordes and barbarians in through the gates and pay for them to live here and eat out of our substance and be provided a living from our taxed labor.
No need to insist they follow the laws or our language and culture.
We are committing national suicide for the sake of replacing the existing population with more pliant slaves.
@INVAR, did you read the bill? I'm not a fan because I take a very hardline stance, but I don't think the bill does what you seem to think it does.
-
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/18/ted-cruz-immigrant-families-together-border-texas/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/18/ted-cruz-immigrant-families-together-border-texas/)
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz announced emergency legislation Monday evening to keep immigrant families together after they cross the border into the United States.
The legislation follows comments Cruz made on Saturday that essentially called for more resources to adjudicate asylum claims. He also called for keeping immigrant kids with their parents as long as those adults are not associated with criminal activity.
"All Americans are rightly horrified by the images we are seeing on the news, children in tears pulled away from their mothers and fathers," Cruz wrote in a release. "This must stop. Now. We can end this crisis by passing the legislation I am introducing this week."
The provisions of the legislation, according to the news release, include:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgAmOSOUEAAIouu.jpg)
More at link...
I wonder how child separation is polling in TX?
-
Already posted: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,320869.msg1716124.html#msg1716124 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,320869.msg1716124.html#msg1716124)
-
@INVAR, did you read the bill? I'm not a fan because I take a very hardline stance, but I don't think the bill does what you seem to think it does.
"would require the federal government to keep immigrant families together"
Does not limit "immigrant families" to those "families" who are in country legally or with permissions via proper paperwork flings while their case is adjudicated.
This seems to be a blanket to cover all "immigrants" whether legal or illegal.
AFAIC - we need to shut the damn border down hard. STOP any and ALL immigration from anywhere until the millions already here become assimilated in 20 years or so.
You will not remain an intact country for long with open borders to a welfare state. Our goose may already be cooked.
And Cruz, is just playing politics - which makes me sick to my stomach.
It is time to END all the incentives to the invasion that is hastening the bankruptcy of the country.
If you are here illegally, expect to lose your children until you are repatriated with them in your native country after deportation.
-
Cruz defends Trump policy of family separation
MSN News, Jun 11, 2018, The Hill
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is defending the Trump administration's policy of separating migrants from their children when they are apprehended at the border, saying it can't be avoided when people illegally cross the border.
"There's actually a court order that prevents keeping the kids with the parents when you put the parents in jail," Cruz told the Dallas public radio station KERA on Monday, according to a report in The Dallas Morning News.
"So when you see reporters, when you see Democrats saying don't separate kids from their parents, what they're really saying is don't arrest illegal aliens," Cruz said.
"There is a reason why under the Obama administration that often didn't happen, because when they apprehended people here illegally, they just let them go. And when you let them go, you didn't separate children from parents," Cruz said. "There's no doubt that illegal immigration causes human tragedies and many of those tragedies are visited on kids."
The issue has created another contention point between Cruz and his Democratic challenger for his Senate seat, Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D).
"You are either for separating children from their parents or you are against it. I am against it," O'Rourke posted on Facebook last month.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cruz-defends-trump-policy-of-family-separation/ar-AAyvRwT?ocid=spartanntp (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cruz-defends-trump-policy-of-family-separation/ar-AAyvRwT?ocid=spartanntp)
-
I bet this whole thing is the Republican rhinos working with the dems. This let's them pass amnesty while blaming the dems. The dems claim victory for forcing it thru
-
I bet this whole thing is the Republican rhinos working with the dems. This let's them pass amnesty while blaming the dems. The dems claim victory for forcing it thru
It looks like it. Sure hope we're wrong.
-
" keep immigrant families together after they cross the border", in a bus heading south.
-
"would require the federal government to keep immigrant families together"
Does not limit "immigrant families" to those "families" who are in country legally or with permissions via proper paperwork flings while their case is adjudicated.
This seems to be a blanket to cover all "immigrants" whether legal or illegal.
AFAIC - we need to shut the damn border down hard. STOP any and ALL immigration from anywhere until the millions already here become assimilated in 20 years or so.
You will not remain an intact country for long with open borders to a welfare state. Our goose may already be cooked.
And Cruz, is just playing politics - which makes me sick to my stomach.
It is time to END all the incentives to the invasion that is hastening the bankruptcy of the country.
If you are here illegally, expect to lose your children until you are repatriated with them in your native country after deportation.
OK, here is the relevant part: "Providing for expedited processing and review of asylum cases so that — within 14 days — those who meet the legal standards will be granted asylum and those who do not will be immediately returned to their home countries."
-
Paul Manafart has kids Lyin' Ted. Can we pass legislation to keep US prisoners with their kids too?
-
OK, here is the relevant part: "Providing for expedited processing and review of asylum cases so that — within 14 days — those who meet the legal standards will be granted asylum and those who do not will be immediately returned to their home countries."
The only thing required to defuse this situation and end the abuse of the asylum offer is to take a timely and serious look at each individual case - requiring more adjudicators of course. By all means put mom and junior together - even if mom has a weeks' beard growth and doesn't know the kids name (its compassionate) - if an actual fit for asylum proceed from there. If not, home mom & junior go.
BTW any non Mexican passing through Mexico to the USA has already received asylum before they get here - from Mexico. I believe international law stipulates that asylum shall be granted by the first safe country a refugee enters. So each of those people, as well as those trying to enter illegally, should be summarily turned away at the border every time.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgAppbfW0AAoA5p.jpg)
(And they're not coming through ports of entry to claim asylum.)
-
OK Folks, can someone explain to me why we can't have this bill instead?
Legislation which guts the existing process and replaces with immediate deportation of those caught in the act of entering illegally.
They want intact families? OK, deport them together!
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgAppbfW0AAoA5p.jpg)
(And they're not coming through ports of entry to claim asylum.)
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/18/illegals-other-children-asylum-claims/ (http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/18/illegals-other-children-asylum-claims/)
Illegal immigrants are increasingly posing with children who are not their own in order to try to gain expedited entry to the U.S., multiple sources tell The Daily Caller.
A law enforcement source directly involved in apprehension told The Daily Caller officers are increasingly encountering “family units†of adult males with children of various ages. When law enforcement attempts to debrief the adult males with children, they often cannot answer even the most basic questions about their supposed children. The children also rarely appear to know details of their apparent “fathers.â€
The law enforcement source cast doubt on the asylum claims that many of the illegal immigrants appear to parrot, pointing out that the vast majority of those detained are actively trying to evade authorities. Only upon their detention do they offer the exact same credible fear of returning home, most of whom say the phrase in the exact same scripted way.
-
This is make or break. Do Not Retreat Donny. Hold the Line!
http://thehill.com/latino/392912-trump-digs-in-amid-uproar-on-zero-tolerance-policy (http://thehill.com/latino/392912-trump-digs-in-amid-uproar-on-zero-tolerance-policy)
President Trump on Monday showed no signs of budging from his “zero tolerance†border policy as a growing number of Republicans criticized it for separating children from their families.
The Trump administration is digging in, defending its stance while many Republicans on Capitol Hill are worried that the White House’s policy will become a huge election year issue. The immigration story has dominated headlines over the last several days and fractured the GOP.
Trump is scheduled to meet House Republicans Tuesday evening to discuss two GOP immigration bills that are expected to hit the floor this week.
-
OK Folks, can someone explain to me why we can't have this bill instead?
Legislation which guts the existing process and replaces with immediate deportation of those caught in the act of entering illegally.
They want intact families? OK, deport them together!
The idea is to discourage them from even trying in the first place. This is more important than the wall.
-
Sen. Ted Cruz introduces 'emergency' bill to keep immigrant families together, slams Dems' proposal
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Monday announced a plan to introduce comprehensive "emergency legislation" designed to end unnecessary separations of illegal immigrant children from their parents.
The bill, an answer to President Trump's call for a congressional solution to the situation, would double the number of immigration judges to 750 and mandate that illegal immigrant families be kept together, unless there has been "aggravated criminal conduct" or threat of harm to the children, according to Cruz's office.
The new legislation would also authorize new temporary shelters for immigrant families, and provide for expedited resolution of asylum claims within 14 days.........
.........But the administration has consistently said that the so-called Flores consent decree -- crafted during former President Bill Clinton's administration -- is what prohibits them from keeping parents and children together during these prosecutions, by limiting how long children can remain in federal custody.............
..........."President Obama held tens of thousands of children in detention centers who came illegally as immigrants," Cruz said. "Now, when Obama was president, the Democrats didn’t think it was a problem. ... But regardless, it was a problem then, it’s a problem now.".......
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/18/sen-ted-cruz-introduces-emergency-bill-to-keep-immigrant-families-together-slams-dems-proposal.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/18/sen-ted-cruz-introduces-emergency-bill-to-keep-immigrant-families-together-slams-dems-proposal.html)
-
Stop making illegal entry into the country easier and more palatable. Spend the money on the damn wall and force those entering through the south through US ports of entry.
Problem solved.
-
Stop spending money to make illegal entrants into the US more comfortable. Spend the money on the damn wall and force those coming into this country from the south through US Ports of Entry.
Problem solved.
We don't need a damn "emergency bill". We need the wall.
-
Sen. Ted Cruz introduces 'emergency' bill to keep immigrant families together, slams Dems' proposal
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Monday announced a plan to introduce comprehensive "emergency legislation" designed to end unnecessary separations of illegal immigrant children from their parents.
The bill, an answer to President Trump's call for a congressional solution to the situation, would double the number of immigration judges to 750 and mandate that illegal immigrant families be kept together, unless there has been "aggravated criminal conduct" or threat of harm to the children, according to Cruz's office.
The new legislation would also authorize new temporary shelters for immigrant families, and provide for expedited resolution of asylum claims within 14 days.........
.........But the administration has consistently said that the so-called Flores consent decree -- crafted during former President Bill Clinton's administration -- is what prohibits them from keeping parents and children together during these prosecutions, by limiting how long children can remain in federal custody.............
..........."President Obama held tens of thousands of children in detention centers who came illegally as immigrants," Cruz said. "Now, when Obama was president, the Democrats didn’t think it was a problem. ... But regardless, it was a problem then, it’s a problem now.".......
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/18/sen-ted-cruz-introduces-emergency-bill-to-keep-immigrant-families-together-slams-dems-proposal.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/18/sen-ted-cruz-introduces-emergency-bill-to-keep-immigrant-families-together-slams-dems-proposal.html)
Caving Craven Cruz. Wadda freaking punk.
-
Stop spending money to make illegal entrants into the US more comfortable. Spend the money on the damn wall and force those coming into this country from the south through US Ports of Entry.
Problem solved.
We don't need a damn "emergency bill". We need the wall.
@Right_in_Virginia
I always suspected Cruz was a ballless weasel.
-
Topics merged.
-
Bad move on the Senator's part.
-
Bad move on the Senator's part.
Maybe Paddy's poll numbers are growing?
-
Caving Craven Cruz. Wadda freaking punk.
No, if you read the bill, he is talking about HOLDING them all until they are deported. Now, they are released and told to reappear for their hearing. Which, very few do.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
I always suspected Cruz was a ballless weasel.
Cruz is as phony as a three dollar bill. But he is still better than any Rat.
-
No, if you read the bill, he is talking about HOLDING them all until they are deported. Now, they are released and told to reappear for their hearing. Which, very few do.
@Sanguine
HorseHillary! There is NO reason to hold any of them longer than overnight. They are either citizens or legal aliens with permission to be here,or they get deported.
What he is talking about is caving to the left while getting more money to run the bureaucracy. The Border Patrol needs more money to hire agents and build the wall,not more money to feed,clothe,house,educate,and hire lawyers to represent illegal aliens in holding.
You either stand for something,or you stand for nothing at all. Smarmy Ted Cruz stands for straddling any issue and standing for nothing.
BTW,I can see holding the adults for maybe a week before deporting them. They can be given picks and shovels to help clean land to pour a cement base for the wall. The ones to old or weak to do that can carry water for the ones working.
There MUST be some sort of punishment for violating our border and breaking out national,state,and local laws.
As for their children,they could be deported to Mexico immediately,and let the Mexicans bear the expense of baby-sitting them while their parents are working off their labor sentences in the US. Maybe THEN the Mexicans would start taking seriously their obligation to guard their borders.
-
@Sanguine
HorseHillary! There is NO reason to hold any of them longer than overnight. They are either citizens or legal aliens with permission to be here,or they get deported.
What he is talking about is caving to the left while getting more money to run the bureaucracy. The Border Patrol needs more money to hire agents and build the wall,not more money to feed,clothe,house,educate,and hire lawyers to represent illegal aliens in holding.
You either stand for something,or you stand for nothing at all. Smarmy Ted Cruz stands for straddling any issue and standing for nothing.
Sorry, Pete, it's the law. If you stop them and they have been coached to request amnesty, they have to give them a hearing. Cruz's bill greatly accelerates the hearing and subsequent deportation.
-
@Sanguine
HorseHillary! There is NO reason to hold any of them longer than overnight. They are either citizens or legal aliens with permission to be here,or they get deported.
What he is talking about is caving to the left while getting more money to run the bureaucracy. The Border Patrol needs more money to hire agents and build the wall,not more money to feed,clothe,house,educate,and hire lawyers to represent illegal aliens in holding.
You either stand for something,or you stand for nothing at all. Smarmy Ted Cruz stands for straddling any issue and standing for nothing.
Anyone that crossed Mexico to apply in the US should be automatically denied.
-
Maybe Paddy's poll numbers are growing?
Doubtful...
-
No, if you read the bill, he is talking about HOLDING them all until they are deported. Now, they are released and told to reappear for their hearing. Which, very few do.
Bingo!
-
Anyone that crossed Mexico to apply in the US should be automatically denied.
@jpsb
I agree,and beyond that they should be denied the right to apply to enter the US for at least 5 years. Any caught the second time should be given actual prison sentences.
-
Doubtful...
Yeah. Probable so. But the boy has been all over the news empithizing with the plight of "his people".
Those damn law breaking Irish boarder crosser's anyway. I tell yeah.
-
Yeah. Probable so. But the boy has been all over the news empithizing with the plight of "his people".
Those damn law breaking Irish boarder crosser's anyway. I tell yeah.
Democrats are disgusting liars, every damn one of them.
-
Sorry, Pete, it's the law. If you stop them and they have been coached to request amnesty, they have to give them a hearing. Cruz's bill greatly accelerates the hearing and subsequent deportation.
@Sanguine
Sorry,Sanguine,but if Cruz can write a law to coddle them,he could just as easily write a law to demand instant deportation after a week of hard labor. Their children are caught with them,and there is no reason their children can't be loaded on buses and bused right back to Mexico the same day,and dumped off for the Mexican government to take care of.
-
Yeah. Probable so. But the boy has been all over the news empithizing with the plight of "his people".
Those damn law breaking Irish boarder crosser's anyway. I tell yeah.
His people? Is he referring to Sinn Fein?
-
No, if you read the bill, he is talking about HOLDING them all until they are deported. Now, they are released and told to reappear for their hearing. Which, very few do.
Bingo!
@Sanguine @txradioguy
Ok,so instead of writing a law that pleases them and costs America even more money,write a law that says the adults are used as labor gangs to work on the wall for free while awaiting the hearing.
There is NO legitimate,or even sane,reason to let invaders loose so they can disappear.
-
Sorry, Pete, it's the law. If you stop them and they have been coached to request amnesty, they have to give them a hearing. Cruz's bill greatly accelerates the hearing and subsequent deportation.
Why the need for a hearing? You caught them red handed crossing the border illegally. DEPORT THEM BACK from the border !
Why can't we have a bill like this? Nobody has explained this to me.
-
Why the need for a hearing? You caught them red handed crossing the border illegally. DEPORT THEM BACK from the border !
Why can't we have a bill like this? Nobody has explained this to me.
Because there's no way in hell it would pass. Deprive the dems and rinos of this issue? No way.
-
Because there's no way in hell it would pass. Deprive the dems and rinos of this issue? No way.
That aside, I'm sure you agree that DEPORTING THEM WITHOUT A HEARING is the most practical thing to do....
Look, if they want to live and work in America, they have a LEGAL channel to do it. Tell them to follow the law.
-
Because there's no way in hell it would pass. Deprive the dems and rinos of this issue? No way.
Let me edit to add that I agree with your observation.
Given those limitations a Senator has to work with, why the heck do I read so much hate on what Ted Cruz is doing? He is simply doing the most practical and politically possible thing at the moment.
-
His people? Is he referring to Sinn Fein?
Yes. But only the Brown Sinn Fein.
-
Why the need for a hearing? You caught them red handed crossing the border illegally. DEPORT THEM BACK from the border !
Why can't we have a bill like this? Nobody has explained this to me.
@SirLinksALot
We can't have a bill like that because the Dims would lose talking points,and the alleged Republicans are nothing but Dims.
Besides,don't you understand there are political contributions for ALL politicians that will go away if we simplify the problem?
Next think you know,you will be demanding they pay for their own domestic help and vacations!
-
Let me edit to add that I agree with your observation.
Given those limitations a Senator has to work with, why the heck do I read so much hate on what Ted Cruz is doing? He is simply doing the most practical and politically possible thing at the moment.
Thanks for the clarification.
Why the hate? Because, IMHO, Cruz was the most significant challenger to DJT and that earned him a lot of hate, so there are a few here who watch for anything positive about Cruz and attack him. My best guess. And, yes, it is an odd reaction.
-
Cruz is actually pretty smart here.
His law does several things that make a bigger point.
1. It only separates those accused of serious law violations (versus just a misdemeanor or for those who are trying to go through legal channels like applying for asylum). It makes the point that those who are separated are true law violators unlike how the left is spinning it and it takes the issue away from them claiming they are just people who are being separated when they apply for asylum at border checkpoints (2-3 cases of this they use as examples).
2. The way this is worded, he is taking specific aim at the source law Bill Clinton passed.
3. He is the only person who has offered up anything of substance. Everyone else is just using the children as political props.
4. It validates which children are with their actual families versus being smuggled in through human trafficking.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
I always suspected Cruz was a ballless weasel.
Well, I can neither confirm nor deny this :laugh:
But he is a reactionary .... A few years ago he said kids should go back .... and when the heat increases Cruz then makes a big photo op out of handing out teddy bears. A few days ago Cruz articulated fact-based support for the President's actions and today after a few days of biased attacks ---- the situation is so dire we need emergency legislation.
It would have been more helpful had Cruz reminded folks that the Republican caucus is meeting with the President tonight (planned a while ago) to discuss the immigration reform bills being worked on ... and that the issues of the wall and children here illegally will be part of the discussion, and the solution proposed. A reminder that the Demonrats aren't doing anything except exploiting children would have been a nice touch.
At this point in time a carve-out emergency bill is just stupid. IMHO, of course. And I don't care who proposes it.
@sneakypete
-
Cruz is actually pretty smart here.
His law does several things that make a bigger point.
1. It only separates those accused of serious law violations (versus just a misdemeanor or for those who are trying to go through legal channels like applying for asylum). It makes the point that those who are separated are true law violators unlike how the left is spinning it and it takes the issue away from them claiming they are just people who are being separated when they apply for asylum at border checkpoints (2-3 cases of this they use as examples).
2. The way this is worded, he is taking specific aim at the source law Bill Clinton passed.
3. He is the only person who has offered up anything of substance. Everyone else is just using the children as political props.
4. It validates which children are with their actual families versus being smuggled in through human trafficking.
@AbaraXas
IF what you say is true,I agree,and stand corrected.
-
Well, I can neither confirm nor deny this :laugh:
But he is a reactionary .... A few years ago he said kids should go back .... and when the heat increases Cruz then makes a big photo op out of handing out teddy bears. A few days ago Cruz articulated fact-based support for the President's actions and today after a few days of biased attacks ---- the situation is so dire we need emergency legislation.
It would have been more helpful had Cruz reminded folks that the Republican caucus is meeting with the President tonight (planned a while ago) to discuss the immigration reform bills being worked on ... and that the issues of the wall and children here illegally will be part of the discussion, and the solution proposed. A reminder that the Demonrats aren't doing anything except exploiting children would have been a nice touch.
At this point in time a carve-out emergency bill is just stupid. IMHO, of course. And I don't care who proposes it.
@sneakypete
Yep. Really stupid to propose something that would help limit illegals gaining entry AND take the issue away from the dems.
-
Well, I can neither confirm nor deny this :laugh:
But he is a reactionary .... A few years ago he said kids should go back .... and when the heat increases Cruz then makes a big photo op out of handing out teddy bears. A few days ago Cruz articulated fact-based support for the President's actions and today after a few days of biased attacks ---- the situation is so dire we need emergency legislation.
It would have been more helpful had Cruz reminded folks that the Republican caucus is meeting with the President tonight (planned a while ago) to discuss the immigration reform bills being worked on ... and that the issues of the wall and children here illegally will be part of the discussion, and the solution proposed. A reminder that the Demonrats aren't doing anything except exploiting children would have been a nice touch.
At this point in time a carve-out emergency bill is just stupid. IMHO, of course. And I don't care who proposes it.
@sneakypete
That makes it sound like he is just playing both sides against the middle so he can promote himself.
Nothing shocking when a professional politician does this. It's how most of them became successful politicians.
It sure doesn't make him presidential material,though.
-
Cruz is actually pretty smart here.
His law does several things that make a bigger point.
1. It only separates those accused of serious law violations (versus just a misdemeanor or for those who are trying to go through legal channels like applying for asylum). It makes the point that those who are separated are true law violators unlike how the left is spinning it and it takes the issue away from them claiming they are just people who are being separated when they apply for asylum at border checkpoints (2-3 cases of this they use as examples).
2. The way this is worded, he is taking specific aim at the source law Bill Clinton passed.
3. He is the only person who has offered up anything of substance. Everyone else is just using the children as political props.
4. It validates which children are with their actual families versus being smuggled in through human trafficking.
Fold it into the upcoming immigration bill and force democrats to vote for it.
A stand alone carve out bill takes democrats off the hook for full immigration reform.
-
Cruz is actually pretty smart here.
His law does several things that make a bigger point.
1. It only separates those accused of serious law violations (versus just a misdemeanor or for those who are trying to go through legal channels like applying for asylum). It makes the point that those who are separated are true law violators unlike how the left is spinning it and it takes the issue away from them claiming they are just people who are being separated when they apply for asylum at border checkpoints (2-3 cases of this they use as examples).
2. The way this is worded, he is taking specific aim at the source law Bill Clinton passed.
3. He is the only person who has offered up anything of substance. Everyone else is just using the children as political props.
4. It validates which children are with their actual families versus being smuggled in through human trafficking.
This is Cruz's MO - he attacks the democrats by addressing their rhetoric with legislation. Naturally they'll refuse to support him because their rhetoric is based on BS. Exposing their hypocrisy.
Trump understands this approach as well. He did the same thing when he upped the DACA number to 180k in exchange for his other demands. He knew the democrats wouldn't bite.
-
That makes it sound like he is just playing both sides against the middle so he can promote himself. Nothing shocking when a professional politician does this. It's how most of them became successful politicians.
It sure doesn't make him presidential material,though.
Cruz seems to have some trouble with the whole strategery thing.
-
The GOP has a majority and the majority has a responsibility to fix this. Or else the GOP soon won't have a majority.
It is well past time for the reactionary restrictionists to stop delaying action on immigration reforms. The provisions that should command majority support can and should include the following:
- Money for border security, including the wall
- Normalize the "Dreamers"
- Increase the number of immigration judges so asylum claims can be addressed quickly
- Provide for detention of parents with children during the pendency of asylum claims
That's it. No e-verify, no cuts in legal immigration, no changes to "chain migration". That can keep for another day. The goal now must be to take steps to address the immediate crisis so the GOP - both moderates and conservatives - can retain their majority.
-
Cruz seems to have some trouble with the whole strategery thing.
Really? How so?
-
Really? How so?
Read my previous posts.
-
The GOP has a majority and the majority has a responsibility to fix this. Or else the GOP soon won't have a majority.
It is well past time for the reactionary restrictionists to stop delaying action on immigration reforms. The provisions that should command majority support can and should include the following:
- Money for border security, including the wall
- Normalize the "Dreamers"
- Increase the number of immigration judges so asylum claims can be addressed quickly
- Provide for detention of parents with children during the pendency of asylum claims
That's it. No e-verify, no cuts in legal immigration, no changes to "chain migration". That can keep for another day. The goal now must be to take steps to address the immediate crisis so the GOP - both moderates and conservatives - can retain their majority.
Cruz's bill does this except for "nomalizing the dreamers", whatever that means and providing money for border security, which has to be initiated in the House.
-
The GOP has a majority and the majority has a responsibility to fix this. Or else the GOP soon won't have a majority.
It is well past time for the reactionary restrictionists to stop delaying action on immigration reforms. The provisions that should command majority support can and should include the following:
- Money for border security, including the wall
- Normalize the "Dreamers"
- Increase the number of immigration judges so asylum claims can be addressed quickly
- Provide for detention of parents with children during the pendency of asylum claims
That's it. No e-verify, no cuts in legal immigration, no changes to "chain migration". That can keep for another day. The goal now must be to take steps to address the immediate crisis so the GOP - both moderates and conservatives - can retain their majority.
Totally disagree about chain migration. It is every bit as critical as DACA that that farce be reformed NOW.
80% of legal immigrants are coming in under this program, for no other reason than their relation to someone already here. Its way past time for a merit based system that actually benefits the nation as much as it does the immigrants.
It needs to be done now while the administration has the leverage.
-
Cruz is actually pretty smart here.
His law does several things that make a bigger point.
1. It only separates those accused of serious law violations (versus just a misdemeanor or for those who are trying to go through legal channels like applying for asylum). It makes the point that those who are separated are true law violators unlike how the left is spinning it and it takes the issue away from them claiming they are just people who are being separated when they apply for asylum at border checkpoints (2-3 cases of this they use as examples).
2. The way this is worded, he is taking specific aim at the source law Bill Clinton passed.
3. He is the only person who has offered up anything of substance. Everyone else is just using the children as political props.
4. It validates which children are with their actual families versus being smuggled in through human trafficking.
He needs to rename the bill. Makes it...at first glance...sound like a squishy RINO creation.
-
Sorry, Pete, it's the law. If you stop them and they have been coached to request amnesty, they have to give them a hearing. Cruz's bill greatly accelerates the hearing and subsequent deportation.
Did they come in through the front door having filled out all the paperwork so they can be vetted and interviewed to see if they even qualify for 'refugee status'?????
Or will this apply to the millions who sneak in here literally or under false pretenses?????
I am pretty certain this is going to be used as a BLANKET to cover any and all entrants to the country - whether they be legit or illegal. Just you watch.
Cruz is playing political weasel on this- and it's sickening to capitalize on it when the issue is about the MILLIONS who are pouring over our borders illegally versus the small numbers actually following OUR LAWS to come into the country.
-
OK, here is the relevant part: "Providing for expedited processing and review of asylum cases so that — within 14 days — those who meet the legal standards will be granted asylum and those who do not will be immediately returned to their home countries."
@Sanguine
This is the part which I think will be most difficult.
Just about every lawyer who takes these sanctuary cases will tell the courts that 14 days won't be enough time to depose witnesses, to bring them in from whatever country the people are seeking asylum from.
I would imagine just about every lawyer who takes on these cases will request that these hearings are move out further.
-
@Sanguine
This is the part which I think will be most difficult.
Just about every lawyer who takes these sanctuary cases will tell the courts that 14 days won't be enough time to depose witnesses, to bring them in from whatever country the people are seeking asylum from.
I would imagine just about every lawyer who takes on these cases will request that these hearings are move out further.
I agree, it will be difficult.
-
Why are we not DEMANDING that ALL IMMIGRATION BE STOPPED until a new and better system is put in place??? A system that LIMITS immigrants to specific quotas and thresholds to those who are literate, clean and can benefit American society and culture by being willing to become an American?
ALL IMMIGRATION needs to stop right now. As in ZERO - NADA - ZILCH immigrants allowed into the country until the millions upon millions already here ASSIMILATE.
With the rare exception of persecuted minorities needing asylum to be prevented from being exterminated, our borders and immigration policy needs to be set to ZERO.
NO EXCEPTIONS.
We did this before out of necessity in 1924 and put in a policy that restricted the inflow of immigrants to just 2% of each racial and national demographic that exist in the country while prohibiting any immigrants from nations seen as a risk or trouble to the country. Of course LBJ let that go to hell in 1965 and opened the immigration spigot wide.
We have the most ridiculous immigration system on the planet - that essentially has open borders to a welfare state for the world's vermin to take advantage of and do us harm.
Cruz is proving to be nothing but the political opportunist many said he was all along.
-
The GOP has a majority and the majority has a responsibility to fix this. Or else the GOP soon won't have a majority.
@Jazzhead
You say that just like you think the GOP likes being in charge.
-
He needs to rename the bill. Makes it...at first glance...sound like a squishy RINO creation.
@txradioguy
Gee,THERE'S a shocker!
-
And we are all, yet again, being regaled with a shiny object to distract us from things going on that are immensely important to the Republic.
-
And we are all, yet again, being regaled with a shiny object to distract us from things going on that are immensely important to the Republic.
Yep.
-
Totally disagree about chain migration. It is every bit as critical as DACA that that farce be reformed NOW.
80% of legal immigrants are coming in under this program, for no other reason than their relation to someone already here. Its way past time for a merit based system that actually benefits the nation as much as it does the immigrants.
It needs to be done now while the administration has the leverage.
Demanding an end to chain migration acts like a poison pill. No immigration bill that includes such a provision can pass. I'm not here to debate the merits of that policy; I am just acknowledging reality. The immediate issues are (i) addressing the optics of separating kids from parents, which is killing the GOP politically, more so than any other issue, (ii) getting the President the money he needs to address border security, and (iii) addressing the Dreamers, who a broad spectrum of Americans agree deserve to be normalized. Larding an immigration bill with restrictionist priorities is going to guarantee the loss of our majority this fall, because we will have been tasked with the responsibility of addressing the immediate crisis and spit the bit.
-
@Jazzhead
You say that just like you think the GOP likes being in charge.
I hear you, @sneakypete . I don't know about the GOP generally, but it's obvious that conservatives don't like being in charge. They prefer to be kvetching backbenchers, and this fall they'll get their wish.
-
Here is the text of the Cruz bill.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgEVSHZWkAEreN3.jpg)
-
I here you, @sneakypete . I don't know about the GOP generally, but it's obvious that conservatives don't like being in charge. They prefer to be kvetching backbenchers, and this fall they'll get their wish.
@Jazzhead
Close,but no cigar. There are very few actual conservatives with any power in the alleged Republican Party. Most of the leaders are Dims in everything but name,and VERY closely aligned with the DNC. Yeah,they sometimes create an issue so it seems they are standing on principals,but they end up caving in the end.
-
Here is the text of the Cruz bill.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgEVSHZWkAEreN3.jpg)
So, do you like it or not?
-
So, do you like it or not?
I like it. I'm just trying to keep my sense of humor.
-
I like it. I'm just trying to keep my sense of humor.
The Zodiac note or Cruz's bill?
-
The Zodiac note or Cruz's bill?
I like the Cruz bill.
-
I like the Cruz bill.
I do too.
-
" keep immigrant families together after they cross the border", in a bus heading south.
Reading the details, that sounds like the plan for those who don't manage to convince an immigration judge they have a legitimate asylum claim.
-
Reading the details, that sounds like the plan for those who don't manage to convince an immigration judge they have a legitimate asylum claim.
That's how I read it. And, entering illegally is one of the things that makes it not legitimate.
-
That's how I read it. And, entering illegally is one of the things that makes it not legitimate.
The problem lies in the fact the activist judges that populate these immigration courts have allowed what is defined as "legitimate" reasons for asylum to become so broad that there really is no such thing as an illegitimate reason for asylum any more in their estimation.
Then there's the fact we have groups meeting these hoardes of people heading towards our border to coach them on exactly what to say to convince a judge they need to stay in this country.
-
The problem lies in the fact the activist judges that populate these immigration courts have allowed what is defined as "legitimate" reasons for asylum to become so broad that there really is no such thing as an illegitimate reason for asylum any more in their estimation.
Then there's the fact we have groups meeting these hoardes of people heading towards our border to coach them on exactly what to say to convince a judge they need to stay in this country.
Not the ones along the border, TRG.
-
That's how I read it. And, entering illegally is one of the things that makes it not legitimate.
Claiming asylum at the border is not illegal. The claim may or may not be found to be legitimate, but a family's arrival starts a process to determine the legitimacy of the claim. What is outrageous to most Americans is separating parents and children pending the asylum determination. Yes, folks who are incarcerated must be separated from their children. But is it appropriate to treat an arrival at our border seeking asylum as a common criminal?
-
Claiming asylum at the border is not illegal. The claim may or may not be found to be legitimate, but a family's arrival starts a process to determine the legitimacy of the claim. What is outrageous to most Americans is separating parents and children pending the asylum determination. Yes, folks who are incarcerated must be separated from their children. But is it appropriate to treat an arrival at our border seeking asylum as a common criminal?
You're missing the point.
-
CLOSE THE BORDER!
HALT ALL IMMIGRATION.
UNTIL THOSE ALREADY HERE CAN BE VETTED, PROCESSED AND ASSIMILATED INTO AN AMERICAN CULTURE.
NO MORE REFUGEES OR ASYLUM SEEKERS UNLESS THEY ARE CHRISTIANS UNDER PERSECUTION THAT CAN BE VERIFIED.
-
CLOSE THE BORDER!
HALT ALL IMMIGRATION.
UNTIL THOSE ALREADY HERE CAN BE VETTED, PROCESSED AND ASSIMILATED INTO AN AMERICAN CULTURE.
NO MORE REFUGEES OR ASYLUM SEEKERS UNLESS THEY ARE CHRISTIANS UNDER PERSECUTION THAT CAN BE VERIFIED.
Can't be repeated often enough.
-
CLOSE THE BORDER!
HALT ALL IMMIGRATION.
UNTIL THOSE ALREADY HERE CAN BE VETTED, PROCESSED AND ASSIMILATED INTO AN AMERICAN CULTURE.
NO MORE REFUGEES OR ASYLUM SEEKERS UNLESS THEY ARE CHRISTIANS UNDER PERSECUTION THAT CAN BE VERIFIED.
Using all large caps doesn't make your rantings any less insane.
-
Using all large caps doesn't make your rantings any less insane.
There is nothing insane about wanting to get the out of control immigration issues in your country under control.
-
Claiming asylum at the border is not illegal.... But is it appropriate to treat an arrival at our border seeking asylum as a common criminal?
@Jazzhead
No but CROSSING that border IS illegal and thus it is entirely appropriate to treat an arrival as a common criminal because that is what they are. There are legitimate ports of entry for asylum seekers that don’t involve breaking our laws.
And now you’ll babble on about some other libtard belief that you hold.
-
Using all large caps doesn't make your rantings any less insane.
Trust me, you would rather have THOSE large caps than other large caps being used.
-
@Jazzhead
No but CROSSING that border IS illegal and thus it is entirely appropriate to treat an arrival as a common criminal because that is what they are. There are legitimate ports of entry for asylum seekers that don’t involve breaking our laws.
And now you’ll babble on about some other libtard belief that you hold.
And it's not legal either to wait until you've been caught after three years of living here illegally to claim asylum...but the open borders crowd amongst us don't want to dwell on pesky facts like that.
-
Trust me, you would rather have THOSE large caps than other large caps being used.
Is that another threat of violence?
-
Is that another threat of violence?
Yes, he is going to throw virtual capital letters at you. Large angry ones.
Come on, Jazzy, give it up!
-
Yes, he is going to throw virtual capital letters at you. Large angry ones.
Come on, Jazzy, give it up!
:2popcorn:
-
:2popcorn:
Oh I dunno 'bout dat. He accused me of dog whistling to the other Trumsplicans in the hope they'd put in calls to have him swatted.
-
Yes, he is going to throw virtual capital letters at you. Large angry ones.
Come on, Jazzy, give it up!
Would you like to call another witness to the stand Jazzy?
-
Dr.Darrell ScottVerified account @PastorDScott
Once the mid terms are over, liberals won’t talk about detained or separated illegal immigrant children until 2020. #itsallpolitics
_________________________
Nick Searcy, INTERNATIONAL FILM & TELEVISION STAR Verified account @yesnicksearcy
14m14 minutes ago
Nick Searcy, INTERNATIONAL FILM & TELEVISION STAR Retweeted Chad Pergram
Narrator: Schumer thinks having the political issue is far more important than any of those silly children he's pretending to care about.
True 'dat.
-
Is that another threat of violence?
Go cry to your momma and the mods there Jazzy - we know big caps frighten you and offends your delicate sensibilities.
There is safety behind momma's skirt from the big bad caps.
-
A capital letter once bit my sister.
-
Is that another threat of violence?
My goodness you are a whiny thing.
-
A capital letter once bit my sister.
Right on the phonics bone?
-
Over 1,000 views, & 5 pages of jaw boning over a True Conservative with big fat For Rent sign on his back.
-
Over 1,000 views, & 5 pages of jaw boning over a True Conservative with big fat For Rent sign on his back.
Well, isn't that a good advertisement for why you don't trust a politician.
-
Over 1,000 views, & 5 pages of jaw boning over a True Conservative with big fat For Rent sign on his back.
Ah, you didn't read them did you?
-
Over 1,000 views, & 5 pages of jaw boning over a True Conservative with big fat For Rent sign on his back.
Or, a True Conservative acting responsibly as a legislator, public servant and leader.
Kudos, Mr. Cruz.
-
Or, a True Conservative acting responsibly as a legislator, public servant and leader.
Kudos, Mr. Cruz.
Are you off the oxy?
-
Right on the phonics bone?
Oh, the irony of that word.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
I always suspected Cruz was a ballless weasel.
LOLOLOLOLOL....not sure what meds you are on...but please share.
-
Are you off the oxy?
I know, I know, urging politicians to act responsibly is so rare nowadays it seems indistinguishable from intoxication. Better to keep picking at the scabs of the base.
-
Oh, the irony of that word.
:laugh:
-
I know, I know, urging politicians to act responsibly is so rare nowadays it seems indistinguishable from intoxication. Better to keep picking at the scabs of the base.
LOL. Nice to see you are awake.
-
In case people are wondering where the influence is coming from on this, Congress is getting reminders of 'who run Bartertown.'
The Libre Initiative, a nonprofit group financially backed by the Koch brothers, called on the Trump administration on Tuesday to reverse course on what's been called a zero-tolerance immigration policy, which forces children to part ways with their families if they illegally cross the border.
"The president should take immediate action to end the separation of families at the border by rescinding the 'zero tolerance' policy," Daniel Garza, president of the initiative said in statement.
Garza also said his organization will not support two immigration bills that are being crafted within the halls of Congress because he does not believe either do enough to protect participants of the Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals program, also known as Dreamers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/19/a-koch-backed-group-and-other-business-leaders-are-calling-on-trump-to-end-policy-on-family-separation.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/19/a-koch-backed-group-and-other-business-leaders-are-calling-on-trump-to-end-policy-on-family-separation.html)
-
In case people are wondering where the influence is coming from on this, Congress is getting reminders of 'who run Bartertown.'
Please go back to sleep,.
-
@INVAR
On this item, you and I are in perfect agreement.
Cruz is nothing more than another s##t useless political Street Walker.
-
Please go back to sleep.
[Nope.]
Some of the Mods know Latin
-
Are you off the oxy?
Why would anyone want to get off of one of the best cleaners around?
(https://www.magnificentbastard.com/images/pics/billy-mays.jpg)
-
[That's enough.]
-
Not only to you lay down lame posts here, you also use a dead language to do it.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGA3hX7556wzrYH-0zLHAbq-YCJZ3AQ-rzYoCEaJ-SRFNUXCHR)
-
Not only to you lay down lame posts here, you also use a dead language to do it.
He has a plan. Not sure what it is.
-
Not only to you lay down lame posts here, you also use a dead language to do it.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGA3hX7556wzrYH-0zLHAbq-YCJZ3AQ-rzYoCEaJ-SRFNUXCHR)
Is this the pathetic juncture where you tell me about your role here?
-
goddammit, can we get back to the regularly scheduled Ted Cruz thread argument instead of this nonsense?
-
Is this the pathetic juncture where you tell me about your role here?
You have a roll. Bring it.
-
Is this the pathetic juncture where you tell me about your role here?
I serve no role here. I am here to be amused by you posters. When you fail I need to call you out.
-
goddammit, can we get back to the regularly scheduled Ted Cruz thread argument instead of this nonsense?
'Goy" away
-
goddammit, can we get back to the regularly scheduled Ted Cruz thread argument instead of this nonsense?
(https://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Lyin+ted+trigger+mentionlist+trump_4c9041_5889758.jpg)
-
'Goy" away
On the other hand, if you're heading for one of your regularly scheduled meltdowns then I say let's get it on!
-
On the other hand, if you're heading for one of your regularly scheduled meltdowns then I say let's get it on!
(https://img-s2.onedio.com/id-5799e03d3b4218af0a6fdbe1/rev-1/w-312/h-312/o-50x57/f-jpg-gif-webp-webm-mp4/s-a2f9a32e03d7a2d5ca51a086b5056908accd390f.gif)
-
On the other hand, if you're heading for one of your regularly scheduled meltdowns then I say let's get it on!
Cork your malbec. You are out of line.
-
Cork your malbec. You are out of line.
Not sure I'm the one who needs the cork.
-
Not sure I'm the one who needs the cork.
[That's enough].
-
Cruz you're a idiot on this issue right here and right now. I pride myself on giving Trump heck when it is due, well never let it said I don't do the same for Ted.
Bonehead move Cruz and it does not smell any better on you than it would any other politician.
-
Malbec? Christ. Now we have a couple wine snobs going at it.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/2b/24/f82b24cacb68c3755e8dc7010b477225.png)
-
You need a
You got a couple loose, can I borrow one?
-
Malbec? Christ. Now we have a couple wine snobs going at it.
We cant afford a bourbon fueled rosacea. Roos and I like Wine.
-
We cant afford a bourbon fueled rosacea. Roos and I like Wine.
You misspelled whine.
-
We cant afford a bourbon fueled rosacea. Roos and I like Wine.
I really don't like wine, but I like grape jelly. Does that count?
-
You misspelled whine.
Dont tell her.
-
Dont tell her.
Don't
-
I really don't like wine, but I like grape jelly. Does that count?
Jelly? You rube....
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxzmYti5uBg#)
-
Jelly? You rube....
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxzmYti5uBg#)
Rube?
Nothing tops German High Society Wine Snobs.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9JbEUPh7FQ#)
-
Someone say wine?
(https://blog.eckraus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/box_wine.jpg)
I like wine too!
-
Or, a True Conservative acting responsibly as a legislator, public servant and leader.
Kudos, Mr. Cruz.
@Jazzhead
Then again,you probably consider the Kennedy Klan to be conservative.
I just witnessed a bunch of teebee talking heads,most black,whining about how unfair this is on ABC. Some were highlighting a 6 year old girl separated from her mother who had "fled the violence in San Salvador to come to America to be safe". Somebody correct me if I'm wrong,but didn't the CHILDREN THAT STARTED MS-13 come to America to escape poverty and violence according to the talking heads at the time?
Also,NONE of those millionaire talking heads have any worries over these new invaders taking THEIR jobs. In fact,they are probably looking forward to hiring them cheap to provide cheap child care,maid service,and groundskeeping for them.
Anyone else remember Kamala Harris,Hillary's Clinton's bestie in college,and maid of honor at her wedding? Bubba nominated her to head up the alleged Justice Dept because she is allegedly black and female. Then it was discovered she had a illegal alien housekeeper she was keeping as a virtual slave in her DC mansion,and paying her less than minimum wage.
Hey! So a few hundred thousand blue collar workers lose their jobs and go on welfare. Big deal! That's a cheap price to pay to insure the wealthy left have an adequate supply of cheap slave labor.
-
I know, I know, urging politicians to act responsibly is so rare nowadays it seems indistinguishable from intoxication. Better to keep picking at the scabs of the base.
@Jazzhead
Acting responsibly would be protecting America and American citizens,NOT turning America into the northernmost outpost of the 3rd world.
Not that you give a squat as you pat yourself on the back and sing a few verses of "Weeze iz da wurld,weeze iz da peep-pills" to remind yourself of what a SWELL guy you really are.
-
Deglet ovrosco!
@Wingnut @edpc
Inna Gadda DeVita,baybay!
-
You have a roll. Bring it.
@Wingnut
Are you looking to butter her rolls?
-
Anyone else remember Kamala Harris,Hillary's Clinton's bestie in college,and maid of honor at her wedding? Bubba nominated her to head up the alleged Justice Dept because she is allegedly black and female. Then it was discovered she had a illegal alien housekeeper she was keeping as a virtual slave in her DC mansion,and paying her less than minimum wage.
That wasn't Kamala Harris. That was Kimba Wood
-
Someone say wine?
(https://blog.eckraus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/box_wine.jpg)
I like wine too!
Franzia SUCKS, try Peter Vella a much better box of wine.
(http://www.bottleking.com/labels/P20775.jpg)
-
That wasn't Kamala Harris. That was Kimba Wood
@Restored
Thanks for the correction. Kamala/Kimba,I knew it was some sort of <<Nope>> name.
-
@Jazzhead
Acting responsibly would be protecting America and American citizens,NOT turning America into the northernmost outpost of the 3rd world.
@sneakypete
I give you credit for being more honest than most - you acknowledge that the problem you have with immigration is that the faces are brown.
America needs immigrants to grow and to keep the economy humming. (In a story posted on the board this morning, whites in America are dying faster then they're being born.)
Of course I'm advocating increased legal immigration, not the illegal kind. As for enforcing the law, let's drill down and understand that the solutions depend on the kind of "illegals" we're talking about. "Illegals" fall into three broad categories:
1. Those who come here to work and for the opportunity represented by America;
2. Those who come here to engage in criminal mischief; and
3. Those fleeing desperate situations who are seeking asylum.
The second category we can all agree upon - throw the bums out, as quickly and expeditiously as possible. MS-13 cannot be tolerated - and their greatest menace is to our immigrant communities.
The first category I tend to defend, not because I don't recognize they've broken the law, but because they have done so for benign reasons, at the behest of employers who value their productivity, and so many of them have contributed meaningfully to American life. For these, I support a path to normalcy rather than retribution and "zero tolerance". I think most Americans agree with me.
The third category is the one that's at the heart of the current crisis, because the Trump administration wants to treat asylum seekers as criminals, holding them in custody and (because the law requires it) separating parents from children. This is a situation the optics of which are catastrophic for the Republican party.
But cutting to the chase, why do so many "conservatives" refuse to recognize the humanity of folks from South and Central America - Catholics, not Muslims - fleeing chaos and oppression and risking everything to get to America? I'm not suggesting an open door, but the attitude of so many here toward migrants is unremittingly hostile, as if we cannot afford in this rich and prosperous country to cut at least some of these courageous folks a break. By the very fact they have risked their lives and fortunes to get to America, they have demonstrated the sort of character that strikes me as good for America - the kind of drive and ambition that spurred our own ancestors (my grandparents, in my case) to leave their shithole countries and start new lives. Lives that, especially when the first generation becomes the second and third, produce good, solid American citizens.
-
"But cutting to the chase, why do so many "conservatives" refuse to recognize the humanity of folks from South and Central America -"
We recognize their humanity. Why don't they recognize our laws? They aren't coming here for safety. They can get that in Mexico. They are coming here for money.
Legal immigration exists and they should take advantage of it.
-
Please discuss the topic without resorting to personal attacks and vulgarities directed to other members. Thank you.
-
I'm not suggesting an open door,
Who do you think you are attempting to deceive here? Yes you are.
the attitude of so many here toward migrants is unremittingly hostile
Rightfully so. They ignore our laws sneaking in here, drink and drive, kill our citizens with impunity, steal, rob and squat in a nation they intend to reconquinista - all while WE have to pay for their subsistence here.
as if we cannot afford in this rich and prosperous country to cut at least some of these courageous folks a break.
Well then YOU give them a break with your own money and stop using our money to make yourself feel magnanimous.
By the very fact they have risked their lives and fortunes to get to America, they have demonstrated the sort of character that strikes me as good for America
So has Jihad Johnny. And of course you would suggest that just because people do all they can to come get free handouts and a life provided for by the working citizens they intend to kill or replace, that they are 'good for America'.
-
Those responses are pathetic, INVAR. These folks seeking asylum from South and Central America are Christians, you know.
-
Those responses are pathetic, INVAR. These folks seeking asylum from South and Central America are Christians, you know.
Speaking of pathetic attempts.
-
Those responses are pathetic, INVAR. These folks seeking asylum from South and Central America are Christians, you know.
They're breaking our laws by the hundreds of thousands, you know. That's beyond the border jumping, they're murdering people too.
-
Those responses are pathetic, INVAR. These folks seeking asylum from South and Central America are Christians, you know.
What does that have to do with anything? Christians are sending people to their country to do mission work. Why are they coming here when there is work to be done at home? They are not coming here for religious freedom. They are coming here for money.
If they are such good Christians, why aren't they obeying the law?
-
Those responses are pathetic, INVAR. These folks seeking asylum from South and Central America are Christians, you know.
Being poor isn't a cause for Asylum. There are no civil wars in Central America right now that would justify asylum.
About the ONLY country right now we should consider taking asylum seekers from is Venezuela because thanks to Maduro the people of that country ARE being repressed and abused.
-
Those responses are pathetic, INVAR. These folks seeking asylum from South and Central America are Christians, you know.
OK, let me find out what you really want -- How many of these "asylum seekers" ( Note the quotes ) do you want America to accept?
Let me start with a number from a crime infested country like Honduras. Are you willing for our country to accept at least HALF of their 10 million population?
-
OK, let me find out what you really want -- How many of these "asylum seekers" ( Note the quotes ) do you want America to accept?
Let me start with a number from a crime infested country like Honduras. Are you willing for our country to accept at least HALF of their 10 million population?
I am amused by the "let 'em all in" attitude of people who live in the North East. They don't have to pay any of the human costs like people in the border states have to. Spending other peoples lives comes as easily as spending other peoples money.
-
These folks seeking asylum from South and Central America are Christians, you know.
You don't know that without asking them. Coming from a predominantly Christian country doesn't not automatically make one a Christian. Same goes for Americans.
-
You don't know that without asking them. Coming from a predominantly Christian country doesn't not automatically make one a Christian. Same goes for Americans.
Murdering and conquering aren't typical "Christian values" that I recognize.
-
Those responses are pathetic, INVAR. These folks seeking asylum from South and Central America are Christians, you know.
Then.... by your previous posts and ""logic"".... you should be against them all coming to America. Odd that you're not. Could it be.... perhaps.... that you know that what you just stated is yet another inaccurate claim?
-
Murdering and conquering aren't typical "Christian values" that I recognize.
Putting your children in danger isn't either. Kidnapping and using someone else's children just to gain entry into another country isn't either. Belonging to a murderous, raping, thieving gang isn't either. As usual... he is FOS.
-
@sneakypete
I give you credit for being more honest than most - you acknowledge that the problem you have with immigration is that the faces are brown.
And I give you credit and acknowledge the fact that you are full of shit. I am 1/4 American Indian,and have nephews whose father came from Mexico.
In FACT,not only are you full of shit,you are a racist because that is the first thing that popped into your programmed head.
Guess what,Bubba. Americans come in all colors.
America needs immigrants to grow and to keep the economy humming. (In a story posted on the board this morning, whites in America are dying faster then they're being born.)
Once more you have proven you are a blockhead with programmed thinking. Fewer Americans being born is a GOOD thing in a future world of more automation and fewer jobs. This is the major reason we need to keep the illiterate and untrained out of America. We already have a full complement of native-born Americans that are illiterate and untrained that need the menial jobs.
Of course I'm advocating increased legal immigration,
WHY? Other than your programmed kneejerk reaction,that is.
not the illegal kind. As for enforcing the law, let's drill down and understand that the solutions depend on the kind of "illegals" we're talking about. "Illegals" fall into three broad categories:
WRONG! The fall into ONE category. They are all criminals.
The third category is the one that's at the heart of the current crisis, because the Trump administration wants to treat asylum seekers as criminals,
Ok,I am going to use small words,so try to follow along. They ARE criminals if they are here illegally. Is that REALLY such a hard concept for you to understand?
But cutting to the chase, why do so many "conservatives" refuse to recognize the humanity of folks from South and Central America - Catholics, not Muslims - fleeing chaos and oppression and risking everything to get to America? I'm not suggesting an open door,
Yes,you are because even though you probably won't even admit this to yourself,you want the US to prove they are criminals instead of requiring THEM to prove they are not criminals. AND.....,if you come here without permission and sneak across our borders to steal jobs from actual citizens,you ARE a freaking criminal!
but the attitude of so many here toward migrants is unremittingly hostile, as if we cannot afford in this rich and prosperous country to cut at least some of these courageous folks a break.
"Courageous" my big red ass! If these losers were courageous they would stay home to take up rifles and change their corrupt governments,not come here and try to corrupt ours any further than it is already corrupted.
By the very fact they have risked their lives and fortunes to get to America, they have demonstrated the sort of character that strikes me as good for America - the kind of drive and ambition that spurred our own ancestors (my grandparents, in my case) to leave their shithole countries and start new lives. Lives that, especially when the first generation becomes the second and third, produce good, solid American citizens.
<NOPE>
Quit with the personal insults.
-
We can tell some of our Briefer friends that do not live in a border state or the Southwest somewhere, just what is going on.
We can tell them how the media isn't reporting things we know.
We can tell them that the new brand of "Asylum" seeker isn't seeking asylum, until they are apprehended, and that they are well rehearsed in exactly what to say when captured.
we can show them how on several occasions, that jihadist have tried to come in illegally through the southern border.
We can show them all the local state and federal crime statistics to back up our claims.
We can take racism out of the equation, and show them how we live quite well with our neighbors whose heritage is from places south of our southern border, thank you very much.
Yet, it is as if we are talking to a wall (one that hasn't been built yet, but needs to be).
They refuse to believe that this time, and probably for at least a decade or more, that the answers to the issues on our Southern border will not be found in some Emma Lazarus poem.
-
I am amused by the "let 'em all in" attitude of people who live in the North East. They don't have to pay any of the human costs like people in the border states have to. Spending other peoples lives comes as easily as spending other peoples money.
@Cyber Liberty
Most see them as cheap domestic help they can abuse,or cheap construction workers they don't have to pay benefits to employ. THOSE are the people wanting more illegals in the country made legal.
-
Murdering and conquering aren't typical "Christian values" that I recognize.
@Cyber Liberty
SERIOUSLY? Have you never heard of a book called "The Bible"?
-
The typical illegal has the attitude of "F You and your Immigration Laws, You Stole this land from us and we have the Right to be here."
I have never understood this mentality.
Exactly who owned what in this sparse continent before the White men came in the 15th century?
Did any Indian or native lay claim to property X in North America and said "This is mine"?
-
@Cyber Liberty
Most see them as cheap domestic help they can abuse,or cheap construction workers they don't have to pay benefits to employ. THOSE are the people wanting more illegals in the country made legal.
True, and I will go one step further.
They really don't care if they become legal or not.
They just want us who foot the bill to leave them alone, so their cheap and abused labor source won't get sent home.
-
@Cyber Liberty
SERIOUSLY? Have you never heard of a book called "The Bible"?
Murdering and conquering my be "biblical" (Old Testament) but it isn't "Christian" (New Testament). Seriously.
-
The typical illegal has the attitude of "F You and your Immigration Laws, You Stole this land from us and we have the Right to be here."
The only peoples that might be able to make that claim (at least as far as Texas is concerned) are
the Comanche and the Apache. Both pretty much did not allow the white man to live here until Austin
led the Americans here in the 1825.
-
I am amused by the "let 'em all in" attitude of people who live in the North East. They don't have to pay any of the human costs like people in the border states have to. Spending other peoples lives comes as easily as spending other peoples money.
Well, I am a Northeasterner (Long Island, New York). I can tell you this -- we used to be one of the most peaceful counties in the east. That all changed in 2014 when Obama took in thousands of young kids and placed them in among all places, the suburbs of Long Island (Brentwood being the foremost).
Soon after that, we get news of MS-13 gang killings almost every week. Guess who the victims are? MOSTLY HISPANICS !!
It became so bad that Trump and Sessions had to fly to Long Island more than once to assure residents that something will be done.
I for one don't want to "let them all in".
-
Those responses are pathetic, INVAR. These folks seeking asylum from South and Central America are Christians, you know.
Why didn't they seek asylum in Mexico?
Oh, because they're not seeking asylum from oppression. They're looking for a sugar daddy.
-
Why didn't they seek asylum in Mexico?
Oh, because they're not seeking asylum from oppression. They're looking for a sugar daddy.
:beer:
-
Well, I am a Northeasterner (Long Island, New York). I can tell you this -- we used to be one of the most peaceful counties in the east. That all changed in 2014 when Obama took in thousands of young kids and placed them in among all places, the suburbs of Long Island (Brentwood being the foremost).
Soon after that, we get news of MS-13 gang killings almost every week. Guess who the victims are? MOSTLY HISPANICS !!
It became so bad that Trump and Sessions had to fly to Long Island more than once to assure residents that something will be done.
I for one don't want to "let them all in".
You are also bringing up another dirty little secret.
Those who come here illegally that are criminals will prey on other illegals who are not.
They have no fear of being turned in, because those that would do so, fear that they would be deported.
Yet, another good reason to stop the inhumane practice of illegal immigration.
-
The typical illegal has the attitude of "F You and your Immigration Laws, You Stole this land from us and we have the Right to be here."
I have never understood this argument.
Stealing a piece of land presumes that you owned the land.
Who actually owned what in North America before the white men arrived?
What "proof" do we have that this tribe or that laid claim to ownership of say, Property X with this size?
Does this mean anyone who arrives first in a vast continent gets to say that he owns all of it?
If Robinson Crusoe lands in an Island, does he now claims that he owns the island when a ship eventually arrives?
-
Murdering and conquering aren't typical "Christian values" that I recognize.
Neither is treating asylum seekers as criminals and separating parents and children.
Can't anyone here see why this looks so bad? If an illegal commits a crime and is incarcerated, she is treated no different than a citizen who commits the same crime - she goes to jail and is separated from her kids. But that's not the situation here - these are asylum seekers, parents and kids escaping oppression. They may or may not merit asylum. But while their case is pending, they are being treated as equivalent to criminals, with parents and kids separated. You may think these are the worst people on earth for daring to knock on our door. But the optics are terrible, and the policy is not sustainable.
-
Neither is treating asylum seekers as criminals and separating parents and children.
Can't anyone here see why this looks so bad? If an illegal commits a crime and is incarcerated, she is treated no different than a citizen who commits the same crime - she goes to jail and is separated from her kids. But that's not the situation here - these are asylum seekers, parents and kids escaping oppression. They may or may not merit asylum. But while their case is pending, they are being treated as equivalent to criminals, with parents and kids separated. You may think these are the worst people on earth for daring to knock on our door. But the optics are terrible, and the policy is not sustainable.
It "looks bad" because the media wants to make it look bad. Goebbels had nothing on our media.
-
I have never understood this argument.
Stealing a piece of land presumes that you owned the land.
Who actually owned what in North America before the white men arrived?
What "proof" do we have that this tribe or that laid claim to ownership of say, Property X with this size?
Does this mean anyone who arrives first in a vast continent gets to say that he owns all of it?
If Robinson Crusoe lands in an Island, does he now claims that he owns the island when a ship eventually arrives?
But the Commies have so indoctrinated people over the years, that they buy this crap.
-
Neither is treating asylum seekers as criminals and separating parents and children.
Let's say you are President Jazzhead and you swore to uphold the law of the land ( which you have to ).
The law of the land says that ADULTS who cross the border illegally must be incarcerated until they can process their claim. The law also says that children cannot be incarcerated with the adult for their safety ( BTW, I will ignore for the meantime, the fact that almost 80% of these kids are NOT with their parents but with some sort of adult "guardian" ( Note the quotes ) ).
What is President Jazzhead supposed to do? IGNORE THE LAW?
BTW, Obama himself was doing the same thing that Trump did. There was not an outcry as big as this one when that happened then. Suddenly, we are supposed to believe that Only Trump is doing this.
-
Neither is treating asylum seekers as criminals and separating parents and children.
Can't anyone here see why this looks so bad? If an illegal commits a crime and is incarcerated, she is treated no different than a citizen who commits the same crime - she goes to jail and is separated from her kids. But that's not the situation here - these are asylum seekers, parents and kids escaping oppression. They may or may not merit asylum. But while their case is pending, they are being treated as equivalent to criminals, with parents and kids separated. You may think these are the worst people on earth for daring to knock on our door. But the optics are terrible, and the policy is not sustainable.
@Jazzhead
I can explain to you what the "Asylum" seeker of today is doing, this isn't you Father's "Asylum" seeker, but I don't think you want to know.
It has been explained in several threads like this.
You may now continue to bury your head in the sand.
-
Neither is treating asylum seekers as criminals and separating parents and children.
Can't anyone here see why this looks so bad? If an illegal commits a crime and is incarcerated, she is treated no different than a citizen who commits the same crime - she goes to jail and is separated from her kids. But that's not the situation here - these are asylum seekers, parents and kids escaping oppression. They may or may not merit asylum. But while their case is pending, they are being treated as equivalent to criminals, with parents and kids separated. You may think these are the worst people on earth for daring to knock on our door. But the optics are terrible, and the policy is not sustainable.
I think murdering Americans is worse than treating "Asylum Seekers" who jumped even that line by not crossing at a Port of Entry.
I don't give a bleep if you think it looks bad. You walk a mile in my shoes and tell me about it looking bad.
-
It "looks bad" because the media wants to make it look bad. Goebbels had nothing on our media.
Perhaps the admin shouldn’t try to rival them in Goebbels-esque behavior by proudly and publicly rolling this practice out with the AG announcing a ‘Zero Tolerance Policy,’ then bring out the DHS Secretary to later say ‘there is no policy.’
-
BTW, Obama himself was doing the same thing that Trump did. There was not an outcry as big as this one when that happened then. Suddenly, we are supposed to believe that Only Trump is doing this.
Actually, after a while, Obama began to ignore the law.
-
Neither is treating asylum seekers as criminals and separating parents and children.
What you don't get, and I know I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you, is that they ARE
NOT asylum seekers. If they were asylum seekers they would enter LEGALLY at a port of entry and
ask for asylum. Then their children would remain with them until a determination was made.
These people are illegally sneaking into USA and if they get caught they have been told to ask for
asylum to delay being deported. If they are not caught illegally sneaking into the country they
don't claim asylum they simply disappear.
So the entire premise of you argument is INCORRECT.
-
Another reason Congress doesn't want to deal with it is because they've been lying to us for many years and they don't want us to see the truth (shocker, I know). Many, even many on our side, are still bandying the number 11 million about. Where did that number come from and does it have any relationship to truth? It might have had some truth to it - many years ago. Since then, the number of "immigrants" has increased dramatically and I don't think anyone inside the Beltway wants us to understand the real numbers and full extent of the problem.
-
@Jazzhead
Asylum Seekers? Are these Communist countries they're fleeing from?
And look what we did to Elian who actually did flee from a Communist country.
-
What you don't get, and I know I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you, is that they ARE NOT asylum seekers. If they were asylum seekers they would enter LEGALLY at a port of entry and ask for asylum. Then their children would remain with them until a determination was made.
These people are illegally sneaking into USA and if they get caught they have been told to ask for
asylum to delay being deported. If they are not caught illegally sneaking into the country they
don't claim asylum they simply disappear.
So the entire premise of you argument is INCORRECT.
That needs to be emphasized.
-
That needs to be emphasized.
Now, don't interrupt liberals when they're trying to stampede people using false analogies.
-
That needs to be emphasized.
And that port of entry would be the first non conflict country they enter...not the third or fourth.
-
Neither is treating asylum seekers as criminals and separating parents and children.
Can't anyone here see why this looks so bad? If an illegal commits a crime ...
This is the problem ... right here: "If an illegal commits a crime" The act of crossing our borders without permission is illegal. For cripes sake, "illegal" is in their very name. What part of this don't you understand?
If people are truly "asylum seekers" then they enter this nation through a US Port of Entry. If they do this, there's no illegal activity and the children stay with the adults.
But the folks running across the border intentionally bypassing a US Port of Entry are doing so because they have no case for asylum. They are invaders and should be treated as such. Send them back...children and adults. No waiting. No judges. As the President said yesterday: We don't need more judges, we need border security.
Don't make this more complicated than it is. US Port of Entry: Good. Running across our border: Bad.
And build the damn wall.
@Jazzhead
-
What you don't get, and I know I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you, is that they ARE
NOT asylum seekers. If they were asylum seekers they would enter LEGALLY at a port of entry and
ask for asylum. Then their children would remain with them until a determination was made.
These people are illegally sneaking into USA and if they get caught they have been told to ask for
asylum to delay being deported. If they are not caught illegally sneaking into the country they
don't claim asylum they simply disappear.
So the entire premise of you argument is INCORRECT.
Absolutely spot on @jpsb
-
This is the problem ... right here: "If an illegal commits a crime" The act of crossing our borders without permission is illegal. For cripes sake, "illegal" is in their very name. What part of this don't you understand?
If people are truly "asylum seekers" then they enter this nation through a US Port of Entry. If they do this, there's no illegal activity and the children stay with the adults.
But the folks running across the border intentionally bypassing a US Port of Entry are doing so because they have no case for asylum. They are invaders and should be treated as such. Send them back...children and adults. No waiting. No judges. As the President said yesterday: We don't need more judges, we need border security.
Don't make this more complicated than it is. US Port of Entry: Good. Running across our border: Bad.
And build the damn wall.
@Jazzhead
100% Correct @Right_in_Virginia
-
The law of the land says that ADULTS who cross the border illegally must be incarcerated until they can process their claim.
Show me where in the law that incarceration is required. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. I agree that the law requires that IF an individual is incarcerated, her kids must be separated. But it is Trump administration policy to incarcerate asylum seekers. It is not the law.
In previous administrations, asylum seekers were released into the U.S. pending their hearing. I agree that's a problem, since an asylum seeker may disappear and not show up at the hearing, and the bail system won't work because they don't come here with assets.
If I were President Jazzhead, I would release asylum seekers (with no other evidence of criminal activity, such as human trafficking) into the U.S. pending their asylum hearing provided they agree to confine themselves to a designated city or town and wear an ankle monitoring bracelet so their locations can be tracked if necessary.
-
The typical illegal has the attitude of "F You and your Immigration Laws, You Stole this land from us and we have the Right to be here."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have never understood this mentality.
Exactly who owned what in this sparse continent before the White men came in the 15th century?
@dfwgator
I do. It is the mindset placed into their heads when they get here by activist Priests and other leftists seeking revolution and power. They were doing this with the US Indian tribes in the 50's and 60's,and now they are doing it with the Indians from south of our border. Do NOT call them "Indians" though,or their heads will explode and they will get violent. They are all the descendants of Spanish Dons,and you WILL call them "Spanish".
Anyhow,the idea by the left is to ferment revolution so that others die and they can then step in to reap the rewards.
-
Key words:
Port of Entry.
-
Murdering and conquering my be "biblical" (Old Testament) but it isn't "Christian" (New Testament). Seriously.
@Cyber Liberty
So,the ORIGINAL "Word of God" has been replaced with the "New and Improved Word of God"?
-
What you don't get, and I know I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you, is that they ARE
NOT asylum seekers. If they were asylum seekers they would enter LEGALLY at a port of entry and
ask for asylum. Then their children would remain with them until a determination was made.
These people are illegally sneaking into USA and if they get caught they have been told to ask for
asylum to delay being deported. If they are not caught illegally sneaking into the country they
don't claim asylum they simply disappear.
So the entire premise of you argument is INCORRECT.
@jpsb @Jazzhead
:amen: :amen: :amen:
-
Show me where in the law that incarceration is required. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. I agree that the law requires that IF an individual is incarcerated, her kids must be separated. But it is Trump administration policy to incarcerate asylum seekers. It is not the law.
Please re-read what was posted above. They ARE NOT asylum seekers. If they were asylum seekers they would enter LEGALLY at a port of entry and ask for asylum. Then their children would remain with them until a determination was made. THAT IS THE LAW.
You don't cross the border illegally without going through a LEGAL and DESIGNATED port of entry and then call yourself an asylum seeker.
If that were the intent of the law, then anybody ( terrorists included ) can call themselves "asylum seekers" ( note the quotes ).
And I am still waiting for you to answer my question -- Exactly how many percent of a country's population who call themselves "asylum seekers" are you willing for this country to take in?
-
Neither is treating asylum seekers as criminals and separating parents and children.
If they came into the country without the proper paperwork and through the proper door, then THEY ARE CRIMINALS - having violated our laws to get in here. Separating children from the adults who are posing as their parents is definitively the correct thing to do. It also acts as a deterrent to those who are being told to come here with their kids and get a free life paid for by SUCKERS in America.
Can't anyone here see why this looks so bad?
We no longer care 'how it looks'. This is an invasion of foreign squatters you are advocating that we pay for and suffer.
But that's not the situation here - these are asylum seekers, parents and kids escaping oppression.
If they snuck into this country without ringing the doorbell and getting the correct visas and paperwork filed, they are CRIMINALS and are lawbreakers and should be treated as invaders and sent back after being DNA marked so that they can never apply to come into this country ever again.
They may or may not merit asylum. But while their case is pending, they are being treated as equivalent to criminals, with parents and kids separated.
Good. It's past time to de-incentivize the open border welfare state that the hordes of squatters and OTMs are told that can just come in here, get treated better than citizens and live off my dime.
Unless you personally are going to house and pay for all these "asylum seekers" while their "cases are being adjudicated" you can just go pound sand.
We're broke and in debt and we cannot afford to deal with all the millions of SOTB squatters and Reconquinistas here now.
-
@Cyber Liberty
So,the ORIGINAL "Word of God" has been replaced with the "New and Improved Word of God"?
I'm not going to argue theology with an Atheist.
-
If I were President Jazzhead, I would release asylum seekers (with no other evidence of criminal activity, such as human trafficking) into the U.S. pending their asylum hearing provided they agree to confine themselves to a designated city or town and wear an ankle monitoring bracelet so their locations can be tracked if necessary.
I might agree with that, except you don't seem to think crossing the border illegally is "criminal activity." Therefore, "No soap, Doc."
-
these are asylum seekers, parents and kids escaping oppression.
Who are "these"?
Who are being "oppressed"?
Last I heard, Mexico is not a country that oppresses its people. Are we going to accept everyone simply because their husbands or significant others are abusing them? Should we accept every rape victim from Central America as asylum seekers?
Every year thousands of children get raped, abused, and sold. Right here in America. Many of these kids are immigrants, and a key tactic traffickers use is to pretend that they are their parents.
BTW, These migrants from Central America claim that the chaos in their home countries amounts to “persecution.†If so, then by international law they must seek refuge in the “first safe country.†That was Mexico, which didn’t offer them asylum, but shipped them north to us.
We have two choices when it comes to border security and interior enforcement. We can continue telegraphing the message that when you come here with children you are home free. This will continue fueling the drug crisis, growing MS-13, enriching the drug cartels, inducing sex trafficking and terrible crimes at the border, encouraging illegals to kidnap children to gain admission, and causing death and mayhem on both sides of the border.
Or we could finally deter this behavior by announcing an end to any immigration requests not processed in a controlled environment through our embassy or our LEGAL port of entry ( why does Jazzhead keep ignoring this key word by the way ?)
And a word about separating kids from their parents. MOST OF THESE SOB STORIES ARE BALONEY.
Rght now — 10,000 of the 12,000 — were sent here alone by their parents. That is when they were separated. THAT's 80% OF CASES !!!
So somehow we’ve conflated everything. But there is two separate issues.
10,000 of those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone.
We now care for them. We have high standards. We give them meals, we give them education, we give them medical care. There is videos, there is TVs.... And you worry about the optics? WHY? Oh because you want to give credibility to the press that hates Trump.
-
@SirLinksALot
:da man:
-
If I were President Jazzhead, I would release asylum seekers (with no other evidence of criminal activity, such as human trafficking)
And how do you determine such evidence unless you incarcerate them first and interrogate them? You seem to want us to trust everything they tell us without verifying their stories. With this, you are going to signal to every single potential illegal entrant that they will be released immediately simply because they use the magic word "asylum seeker" and they bring a child with them.
As I said before, over 80% of those children who came here came ALONE. WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS.
-
Who are "these"?
Who are being "oppressed"?
Last I heard, Mexico is not a country that oppresses its people. Are we going to accept everyone simply because their husbands or significant others are abusing them? Should we accept every rape victim from Central America as asylum seekers?
Every year thousands of children get raped, abused, and sold. Right here in America. Many of these kids are immigrants, and a key tactic traffickers use is to pretend that they are their parents.
BTW, These migrants from Central America claim that the chaos in their home countries amounts to “persecution.†If so, then by international law they must seek refuge in the “first safe country.†That was Mexico, which didn’t offer them asylum, but shipped them north to us.
We have two choices when it comes to border security and interior enforcement. We can continue telegraphing the message that when you come here with children you are home free. This will continue fueling the drug crisis, growing MS-13, enriching the drug cartels, inducing sex trafficking and terrible crimes at the border, encouraging illegals to kidnap children to gain admission, and causing death and mayhem on both sides of the border.
Or we could finally deter this behavior by announcing an end to any immigration requests not processed in a controlled environment through our embassy or our LEGAL port of entry ( why does Jazzhead keep ignoring this key word by the way ?)
And a word about separating kids from their parents. MOST OF THESE SOB STORIES ARE BALONEY.
Rght now — 10,000 of the 12,000 — were sent here alone by their parents. That is when they were separated. THAT's 80% OF CASES !!!
So somehow we’ve conflated everything. But there is two separate issues.
10,000 of those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone.
We now care for them. We have high standards. We give them meals, we give them education, we give them medical care. There is videos, there is TVs.... And you worry about the optics? WHY? Oh because you want to give credibility to the press that hates Trump.
You're wasting your time trying to have an honest discussion with a Leftist Advocate and Agenda Pusher pretending to be Conservative because they think we're too stupid to recognize what they really are and doing here on this board.
All those facts you cited are going to be IGNORED in order to push the narrative that these are 'asylum seekers' and 'not criminals' and that they have a right to be here.
-
Show me where in the law that incarceration is required. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. I agree that the law requires that IF an individual is incarcerated, her kids must be separated. But it is Trump administration policy to incarcerate asylum seekers. It is not the law.
@Jazzhead
<NO MORE PERSONAL INSULTS>
People arrested for Misdemeanors,EVEN US CITIZENS can be locked up pending court appearances and the outcome of their cases IF THEY DON'T HAVE PERMANENT LEGAL US ADDRESSES.
Show me an illegal alien with a legal US address.
-
I might agree with that, except you don't seem to think crossing the border illegally is "criminal activity." Therefore, "No soap, Doc."
President Jazzy believes that some law breakers are more equal than others.
-
Or we could finally deter this behavior by announcing an end to any immigration requests not processed in a controlled environment through our embassy or our LEGAL port of entry ( why does Jazzhead keep ignoring this key word by the way ?)
Frankly, because he wants to.
It doesn't fit the narrative he is trying to push.
He can't paint us as lazy American redneck hayseed bigots if we make sense, therefore, he and others who hold this view ignore it.
-
Show me where in the law that incarceration is required. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. I agree that the law requires that IF an individual is incarcerated, her kids must be separated. But it is Trump administration policy to incarcerate asylum seekers. It is not the law.
Ok. You asked for it.
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325# (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#)
You've never been inside a real court room have you?
-
Ok. You asked for it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325# (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#)
You've never been inside a real court room have you?
Remember "My Cousin Vinny?"
"Yeah, I'm a 'lawyer'. But I don't know anything about courts! They only taught us about Torts and stuff!"
-
Ok. You asked for it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325# (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#)
You've never been inside a real court room have you?
Fail. The question I asked was to show where incarceration is required. The law allows incarceration as an option. It is not required. As I noted above, past administrations mostly released asylum seekers (absent evidence of real criminal activity) into the U.S. pending their hearings, rather than incarcerated them. The Trump Administration is choosing to incarcerate, and as a result is required by law to separate parents from children.
"Zero tolerance" has consequences. One, it appears, is likely the loss of our Republican majority.
-
Frankly, because he wants to.
It doesn't fit the narrative he is trying to push.
He can't paint us as lazy American redneck hayseed bigots if we make sense, therefore, he and others who hold this view ignore it.
Again - I understand the difference between crossing the border illegal and arriving at a port of entry. I am not suggesting that the law not be enforced. The law says that the mere act of crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. The Trump administration has effected a "zero tolerance" policy and is incarcerating asylum seekers for mere misdemeanors. That means it must separate parents and children. That is obviously its intent - to deter families from crossing the border illegally. But the blowback has been tremendous - as well as it should be, because the practice is, when there is no evidence of other criminal acts, inhumane. These are, to most reasonable minds, families seeking to escape from intolerable conditions. That doesn't mean they get a free ticket. But should it mean they should be treated as common criminals, forced at the end of an arduous, courageous trek to be separated from their children?
The Trump administration will reap what it sows.
-
Again - I understand the difference between crossing the border illegal and arriving at a port of entry. I am not suggesting that the law not be enforced. The law says that the mere act of crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. The Trump administration has effected a "zero tolerance" policy and is incarcerating asylum seekers for mere misdemeanors. That means it must separate parents and children. That is obviously its intent - to deter families from crossing the border illegally. But the blowback has been tremendous - as well as it should be, because the practice is, when there is no evidence of other criminal acts, inhumane.
The Trump administration will reap what it sows.
The Trump administration will reap what prior administrations have sown.
-
The Trump administration will reap what prior administrations have sown.
Doesn't every administration?
-
I might agree with that, except you don't seem to think crossing the border illegally is "criminal activity." Therefore, "No soap, Doc."
It is a misdemeanor.
-
This should be up to the legislature, but the Senate can't even fix a tire.
-
It is a misdemeanor.
@Jazzhead
First time its a misdemeanor
Second and each successive time its a felony
but you knew that
How about we just model Mexico's laws?
-
Fail. The question I asked was to show where incarceration is required. The law allows incarceration as an option. It is not required.
Ah yes, the law is always 'optional' when it comes to you Leftists isn't it?
It is a misdemeanor.
Well, we LIKE incarceration for lawbreakers who sneak into the country and get caught - pending their deportation, regardless of how benign you insist the crime is.
You try sneaking into any other third world country and see what happens to you when you get caught. It is past time to reciprocate.
"Zero tolerance" has consequences. One, it appears, is likely the loss of our Republican majority.
Funny how 'zero tolerance' only works in one direction with you people. But how dare anyone refuse to tolerate or serve deviant behaviors you advocate for.
-
Fail. The question I asked was to show where incarceration is required.
And I showed you the law where it says that it is required. Not my fault you didn't read the entire section of U.S. Code.
But then again you're really good and reading what you want to and disregarding the important parts.
And then consider this...most illegals tossed in jail in this country aren't the ones caught at the border. They get pulled over for traffic violations or some other kind of interaction with the local law enforcement is involved and a form of identification is required to be produced.
When the illegal alien can't produce the proper identification and it's determined they are here illegally they are taken into custody and put in jail and ICE is notified.
So yes counselor there are very clear and defined instances where incarnation is required.
These little angels you're so protective of don't just break federal law by illegally entering our country they also drive without proper licensing...proper vehicle registration or insurance. OR the id they do manage to produce is forged...another violation of U.S. law requiring arrest.
How many arrestable offenses do you want to let these little darlings get away with before you stop protecting them?
-
It is a misdemeanor.
It's still a violation of the law.
-
@Jazzhead
First time its a misdemeanor
Second and each successive time its a felony
but you knew that
How about we just model Mexico's laws?
I would be for adopting Mexico's immigration laws as our own today!
-
Fail. The question I asked was to show where incarceration is required. The law allows incarceration as an option. It is not required.
Yes,it IS required if the defendant doesn't have a legal address or enough money to post a bond set high enough to assure they will show up.
There is no such critter as an illegal alien with a legal local address,and if he or she has enough cash in US Dollars to post bond,they ain't poor people seeking refuge.
-
It is a misdemeanor.
A misdemeanor is still "criminal." Doesn't have to be a Felony.
-
Again - I understand the difference between crossing the border illegal and arriving at a port of entry. I am not suggesting that the law not be enforced. The law says that the mere act of crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. The Trump administration has effected a "zero tolerance" policy and is incarcerating asylum seekers for mere misdemeanors. That means it must separate parents and children. That is obviously its intent - to deter families from crossing the border illegally. But the blowback has been tremendous - as well as it should be, because the practice is, when there is no evidence of other criminal acts, inhumane. These are, to most reasonable minds, families seeking to escape from intolerable conditions. That doesn't mean they get a free ticket. But should it mean they should be treated as common criminals, forced at the end of an arduous, courageous trek to be separated from their children?
The Trump administration will reap what it sows.
Well, you've moderated somewhat.
At least you understand now, that if they really were Asylum seekers, they would go to an embassy or a proper port of entry.
That's a start.
You frame of mind: "These are, to most reasonable minds, families seeking to escape from intolerable conditions."
My frame of mind: You are putting a lot of faith, and run the risk of your fellow citizens losing anything from their livelihood, their property, even their own lives on an assumption that, "These are, to most reasonable minds, families seeking to escape from intolerable conditions."
If their first act is to not come in through legal means, not unlike catching someone trespassing, wouldn't it be reasonable that the first reaction is to assume they are here for nefarious reasons? Is it the fact that they bring the kids along enough to run the risk anyway?
You are taking a gamble, with more than just yourself at stake, that you cannot really be sure of.
Your gambling that they are great, salt-of-the-earth people.
They may be, and they may not be.
Guess what? Criminals can have kids, too.
-
You are taking a gamble, with more than just yourself at stake, that you cannot really be sure of.
Your gambling that they are great, salt-of-the-earth people.
They may be, and they may not be.
Guess what? Criminals can have kids, too.
He doesn't give a rip about the human costs. Illegals are killing US Citizens, often in their own homes, because they weren't incarcerated. I've pointed this out, to the sounds of crickets chirping.
-
If their first act is to not come in through legal means, not unlike catching someone trespassing, wouldn't it be reasonable that the first reaction is to assume they are here for nefarious reasons? Is it the fact that they bring the kids along enough to run the risk anyway?
@GrouchoTex if someone kicks in the front door to my house or jimmies the lock on my car and starts going through my stuff...anyone with a brain would assume they don't have good intentions and take precautions to stop the intruder and/or the intrusion by any means necessary.
The United States should do the same thing.
Jazzy wants us to offer the invader that kicks in our front door to our house some coffee and a piece of pie and welcome them with open arms.
-
because the practice is, when there is no evidence of other criminal acts, inhumane.
I like that you're correctly saying that parents who bring their children along on their criminal escapade are inhumane.
Also, as I understand it, they can immediately plead guilty and be deported with their children. But they are choosing not to do so. They continue to be inhumane.
-
And I showed you the law where it says that it is required. Not my fault you didn't read the entire section of U.S. Code.
But then again you're really good and reading what you want to and disregarding the important parts.
And then consider this...most illegals tossed in jail in this country aren't the ones caught at the border. They get pulled over for traffic violations or some other kind of interaction with the local law enforcement is involved and a form of identification is required to be produced.
When the illegal alien can't produce the proper identification and it's determined they are here illegally they are taken into custody and put in jail and ICE is notified.
So yes counselor there are very clear and defined instances where incarnation is required.
These little angels you're so protective of don't just break federal law by illegally entering our country they also drive without proper licensing...proper vehicle registration or insurance. OR the id they do manage to produce is forged...another violation of U.S. law requiring arrest.
How many arrestable offenses do you want to let these little darlings get away with before you stop protecting them?
Every single issue, sacred to Left and the Democrats our Leftist Resident is wholeheartedly for, and every single issue important to Conservative principles, he is against.
Yet he continues to insist he is what he is not while lecturing everyone he is some kind of legal beagle.
He isn't one of those either. He is just a Leftist activist using the nomenclature to beguile.
-
A "misdemeanor" is still a "criminal act." The cases are tried in Criminal Court.
I encourage anybody who doesn't believe this to get stinking drunk, give the wife a couple of black eyes, then hop in your car and start tearing up the neighborhood. All "Misdemeanors" in must States, but you're still going to jail when the cops get you out of the car.
-
@GrouchoTex if someone kicks in the front door to my house or jimmies the lock on my car and starts going through my stuff...anyone with a brain would assume they don't have good intentions and take precautions to stop the intruder and/or the intrusion by any means necessary.
The United States should do the same thing.
Jazzy wants us to offer the invader that kicks in our front door to our house some coffee and a piece of pie and welcome them with open arms.
Maybe Jazzy will be lucky enough to have this current detained crop of people settle in his neck of the woods upon their release.
Then, he can have all the 1st hand experiences of all the joys we've reiterated to him.
-
Maybe Jazzy will be lucky enough to have this current detained crop of people settle in his neck of the woods upon their release.
Then, he can have all the 1st hand experiences of all the joys we've reiterated to him.
He should be so lucky. Most of the open arms crown where immigration is concerned soon change their tune when these "asylum seekers" are tying their arms behind their back.
-
From the beginning of the Trump presidency, Democrats and liberals in news media have had a surfeit of rhetorical and stylistic targets to attack in the White House. But until this month, they have struggled mightily to find anything substantive or policy-related that could really damage President Trump politically.
But now they may have finally found their weapon of choice.
Trump’s zero tolerance policy at the border appears to fulfill his promise to enforce immigration law and end the controversial practice of “catch-and-release.†But in certain specific cases where parents and children cross the border illegally together, strict enforcement requires a lengthy separation of families in cases where an asylum claim is filed by a family after it has been caught illegally sneaking in.
This issue could be avoided if claimants presented themselves at legal border crossings, and the fact that they don't points to the fact that most of them are economic migrants rather than genuine refugees. Either way, immigrants cannot be counted on to follow the law.
According to opinion polls, the public really hates the new enforcement policy that is splitting families. It isn't only die-hard anti-Trumpers who object. Majorities of all demographic groups except self-identified Republicans oppose it, and people don't accept the justifications offered by the administration.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/ted-cruzs-border-bill-to-end-family-separations-makes-sense (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/ted-cruzs-border-bill-to-end-family-separations-makes-sense)
-
What they hate is the the picture that the media has painted, which of course, bears little resemblance to the reality.
But then again, Goebbels could have learned a lot from our media.
-
Not sure how widespread the angst among the public is about this issue, but it's being played to the hilt.
Yeah, Ted Cruz is running for Senate and trying to rescue himself, but he may be rescuing Trump as well.
-
Maybe Jazzy will be lucky enough to have this current detained crop of people settle in his neck of the woods upon their release.
Then, he can have all the 1st hand experiences of all the joys we've reiterated to him.
He knows it's not likely in Philly, but he doesn't give a rats ass when this bunch settles in MY neck of the woods, which is more than likely, it's routine.
9999hair out0000
-
People who hate Trump are outraged.
The people who love Trump are in love with his plan.
The rest of us don't care.
-
He knows it's not likely in Philly, but he doesn't give a rats ass when this bunch settles in MY neck of the woods, which is more than likely, it's routine.
9999hair out0000
I'm southwest of Houston, so we are in the same predicament as you.
-
Article labelled editorial, we already have a thread on this topic. Way To Go!
-
Ted Cruz's border bill to end family separations makes sense
Damned right it does and I think the president is about to put the basic premise in service.
-
I'm southwest of Houston, so we are in the same predicament as you.
That's why I carry concealed everywhere I go. This, too, frosts his testicles. :laugh:
-
Damned right it does and I think the president is about to put the basic premise in service.
I agree. I think some of us may have been in denial about how much this issue is resonating with public.
-
I agree. I think some of us may have been in denial about how much this issue is resonating with public.
It's further proof that P.T. Barnum was right.
-
He knows it's not likely in Philly, but he doesn't give a rats ass when this bunch settles in MY neck of the woods, which is more than likely, it's routine.
9999hair out0000
Are you guys still the kidnapping capitol of the U.S.?
-
A "misdemeanor" is still a "criminal act." The cases are tried in Criminal Court.
I encourage anybody who doesn't believe this to get stinking drunk, give the wife a couple of black eyes, then hop in your car and start tearing up the neighborhood. All "Misdemeanors" in must States, but you're still going to jail when the cops get you out of the car.
You equate illegal immigration to assault. I equate it to trespassing another misdemeanor.
-
Article labelled editorial, we already have a thread on this topic. Way To Go!
The mods can move it if they see fit. I thought it was appropos here, but thanks for monitoring.
-
You equate illegal immigration to assault. I equate it to trespassing another misdemeanor.
Let's just say I disagree. Trespassing into a country is not the same as trespassing into your back yard.
-
Are you guys still the kidnapping capitol of the U.S.?
Last I heard, yes. I really need to start thinking of it as merely trespassing into somebody's back yard, only carrying a human at the same time.
-
That's why I carry concealed everywhere I go. This, too, frosts his testicles. :laugh:
Indeed
-
You equate illegal immigration to assault. I equate it to trespassing another misdemeanor.
Except if you're arrested for trespassing, they don't let you continue to trespass until your case is adjudicated. And if you let them go into the general population until their hearing months or even years down the road, that's exactly what you're doing.
-
You equate illegal immigration to assault. I equate it to trespassing another misdemeanor.
No, it's Home Invasion - and should be a severe felony.
A nation that does not secure it's borders or enforce it's laws against invasion of any kind, is a nation already conquered.
-
Except if you're arrested for trespassing, they don't let you continue to trespass until your case is adjudicated. And if you let them go into the general population until their hearing months or even years down the road, that's exactly what you're doing.
By extension I assume you're defending American sovereignty from your couch.
-
By extension I assume you're defending American sovereignty from your couch.
Where is he supposed to be?
-
If you release them, they are still in the country illegally. We haven't solved the problem
-
The mods can move it if they see fit. I thought it was appropos here, but thanks for monitoring.
The 'other' Thread is full of Trumpers, this one is for the NT'ers.
:tongue2:
-
By extension I assume you're defending American sovereignty from your couch.
No, I'm trying to defend my couch and my country from looney liberals who think illegally crossing the Border is no big thang. People who think if something is swell in Madison, WI, then it should be equally dandy in Phoenix, AZ.
I'd tell more people around here about that, but I can't because their bleepin dead. Murdered by people who want more than my couch.
-
Where is he supposed to be?
I dunno, but definitely not here with me while I personally let illegals go into the general population until their hearing months or even years down the road.
-
Merged topics
-
No, it's Home Invasion - and should be a severe felony.
It's not. It's a misdemeanor.
A nation that does not secure it's borders or enforce it's laws against invasion of any kind, is a nation already conquered.
That should be a bumper sticker.
-
No, I'm trying to defend my couch and my country from looney liberals who think illegally crossing the Border is no big thang. People who think if something is swell in Madison, WI, then it should be equally dandy in Phoenix, AZ.
I'd tell more people around here about that, but I can't because their bleepin dead. Murdered by people who want more than my couch.
I can tell you unequivocally that there ain't nothing swell about Madison. It like the Austin of the north. The liberal stink from that place can be smelt from three states around it.
-
Murdered by people who want more than my couch.
Meanwhile we're told we can't use the necessary tools to defend from people wanting our couch...and more.
Yeah yeah I know... :threadjack:
-
It's not. It's a misdemeanor.
Well, politicians and legal morons can lecture us that home invasion should also just be a misdemeanor if the perp is the correct color and downtrodden ethnic class - and I am of the mind that it doesn't matter what the Betters tell us it is - invade my homer any reason, and get the business end of an iron without so much as a word spoken.
"Trespassers will be shot" once adorned a whole lot of posts and fences in these here parts.
Back when we were still a country of Americans.
-
Moot point now, Trump just caved.
-
Cruz introduces legislation to keep immigrant families together after they cross the border
Ted can pull his bill now and His stink will not be on it.
-
Moot point now, Trump just caved.
The devil is in the details. I have to see the EO first.
-
Again - I understand the difference between crossing the border illegal and arriving at a port of entry. I am not suggesting that the law not be enforced. The law says that the mere act of crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. The Trump administration has effected a "zero tolerance" policy and is incarcerating asylum seekers for mere misdemeanors. That means it must separate parents and children. That is obviously its intent - to deter families from crossing the border illegally. But the blowback has been tremendous - as well as it should be, because the practice is, when there is no evidence of other criminal acts, inhumane. These are, to most reasonable minds, families seeking to escape from intolerable conditions. That doesn't mean they get a free ticket. But should it mean they should be treated as common criminals, forced at the end of an arduous, courageous trek to be separated from their children?
The Trump administration will reap what it sows.
See I knew it was a waste of time to explain to you that the people entering the country illegally are
NOT ASYLUM SEEKERS. I noticed how you refuse to discuss the issue with those of us that try to
point out the very obvious point. As I stated your entire premise it wrong. You are wrong on the
facts and you logic is faulty, all you have is some kind of emotional hissy fit.
-
Moot point now, Trump just caved.
Will be interesting if anyone remembers this cave when we fleeced plebes discover that this policy change Trump signed is used to prevent Illegals from being arrested for any crimes if they have 'children' with them.
-
Well, politicians and legal morons can lecture us that home invasion should also just be a misdemeanor if the perp is the correct color and downtrodden ethnic class - and I am of the mind that it doesn't matter what the Betters tell us it is - invade my homer any reason, and get the business end of an iron without so much as a word spoken.
"Trespassers will be shot" once adorned a whole lot of posts and fences in these here parts.
Back when we were still a country of Americans.
I have not heard anyone claiming home invasion is a misdemeanor.
-
I have not heard anyone claiming home invasion is a misdemeanor.
Somehow the pro-illegal invasion people who pretend to be both legal experts and Conservatives do.
-
I have not heard anyone claiming home invasion is a misdemeanor.
Is the U.S. not your home?
-
Illegals are like Michael Rotondo.
-
I have not heard anyone claiming home invasion is a misdemeanor.
That's because you don't read your own posts. Considering the fact that innocent Americans are being killed by the border jumpers, I equate what they do to home invasions, not trotting around a back yard fence like you seem to think illegal immigration is.
-
Is the U.S. not your home?
Yes it is...now get out of my house.
-
Somehow the pro-illegal invasion people who pretend to be both legal experts and Conservatives do.
Oh I get it. You're changing the meaning of words. Good one.
-
Yes it is...now get out of my house.
It's interesting you consider your house more important than mine.
-
Illegals are like Michael Rotondo.
What ever happened to him?
-
What ever happened to him?
https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2018/06/deadbeat-son-michael-rotondo-lands-job-with-mr-skin/
-
It's interesting you consider your house more important than mine.
It's interesting you don't consider your house more important than mine.
-
It's interesting you don't consider your house more important than mine.
The most idiotic thing you have posted today, and that is saying a lot. Set foot in my house and find out. Remember, my house is not where your profile says yours is.
-
The most idiotic thing you have posted today, and that is saying a lot. <snip worthless threat>
I'm pretty proud of myself.
-
I'm pretty proud of myself.
You should be. Especially if you think somebody defending their home is a "worthless threat." Now you're reduced to whining.
-
You should be. Especially if you think somebody defending their home is a "worthless threat." Now you're reduced to whining.
So's your face.
-
https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2018/06/deadbeat-son-michael-rotondo-lands-job-with-mr-skin/
Oh.
-
So's your face.
:silly:
Touche! I've been beaten by superior experience! You da man! :beer:
-
So's your face.
I have to salute you for that one, @Once-Ler!
-
Oh.
Hired by a guy why lived in his mom's basement till he was 32.
It was kismet.
-
Yes it is...now get out of my house.
I'm here legally in what is my home as well. Unlike others you'd welcome in through the back door.
-
Is the U.S. not your home?
@Once-Ler @txradioguy
No,it's not. He is a "citizen ob de wurld".
-
I'm pretty proud of myself.
@Once-Ler
Of course you are. That's why people like you are called fools.
-
I'm here legally in what is my home as well. Unlike others you'd welcome in through the back door.
@txradioguy
My reply was a joke, and I would feel sad if it stood in the way of us having a discussion because I respect your opinion. I suspect my joke would make you think otherwise, but I am sincere when I tell you it was just a flippant quip with no deeper thought than I thought it was funny. I apologize if I offended you. I enjoy your posts when we agree and I'm more inclined to consider the stuff I don't agree with because it is you writing it.
-
@txradioguy
My reply was a joke, and I would feel sad if it stood in the way of us having a discussion because I respect your opinion. I suspect my joke would make you think otherwise, but I am sincere when I tell you it was just a flippant quip with no deeper thought than I thought it was funny. I apologize if I offended you. I enjoy your posts when we agree and I'm more inclined to consider the stuff I don't agree with because it is you writing it.
My fault for not catching the humor/sarcasm. :beer:
-
If you all are gonna kiss and make up please please please don't do it here.
-
Same here.
@Once-Ler Let's start over... :beer:
**nononono*
(https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_1439,w_2560,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_740/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1492201512/articles/2014/03/04/as-ukraine-rages-gop-fires-on-hillary-for-failed-reset/140303-freedlander-reset-tease_evpx2t)
-
**nononono*
(https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_1439,w_2560,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_740/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1492201512/articles/2014/03/04/as-ukraine-rages-gop-fires-on-hillary-for-failed-reset/140303-freedlander-reset-tease_evpx2t)
Sorry, no "Overcharge" button here... :laugh:
-
If you all are gonna kiss and make up please please please don't do it here.
"No fighting in the War Room!"
-
If you all are gonna kiss and make up please please please don't do it here.
DA/DT has been repealed...we're allowed to kiss and make out anywhere we want to now. :tongue2:
-
DA/DT has been repealed...we're allowed to kiss and make out anywhere we want to now. :tongue2:
@txradioguy
Was this your location?
(http://htccommunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Coolest-Closet-Door-Opening-31-About-Remodel-Amazing-Home-Design-Furniture-Decorating-with-Closet-Door-Opening.jpg)
-
@txradioguy
Was this your location?
(http://htccommunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Coolest-Closet-Door-Opening-31-About-Remodel-Amazing-Home-Design-Furniture-Decorating-with-Closet-Door-Opening.jpg)
:silly:
-
If you all are gonna kiss and make up please please please don't do it here.
It's pretty obvious the respect felt for @txradioguy does not translate to Cyber Liberty, so I erased the "kiss."
We now return to our regularly scheduled hate-fest....