Trump vows to deport all undocumented immigrants and rescind any protections put in place by Obama

[bkepley]

The problem is Godzilla, we are only being given 2 options, amnesty or deportation.
If those are my choices, the I chose deportation.

No like most other countries we deal with illegal immigration as seems fit.  Why does it have to be all or nothing?

[Godzilla]

The problem is Godzilla, we are only being given 2 options, amnesty or deportation.
If those are my choices, the I chose deportation.

We aren't faced with two choices. 

However, the proverb "There is none so blind as those who will not see" seems very appropriate now.

[EdinVA]

We aren't faced with two choices. 

However, the proverb "There is none so blind as those who will not see" seems very appropriate now.

OK, then what are the options the candidates are proposing that we should have available other than deportation and amnesty?

[bkepley]

OK, then what are the options the candidates are proposing that we should have available other than deportation and amnesty?

Well it could be that we regard any state gvmnt which sets itself up to welcome these criminals openly as being in violation of Federal law..etc..etc.. and many other such acts as Bigun has suggested and in the meantime deport the mentally ill and criminal and etc..orwe could elect a Peter Pan who waves his magic wand and the whole problem goes away somehow.

[olde north church]

70 years ago, our income tax on the top earners was over 90%... to pay for that war.

Today, conservatives rail against high taxes and our politicians trot out tax cuts every so often.

You can't reconcile the two positions.  If you want that sort of government 'wunderwerk', you'd best be willing to *PAY* for it.

But if you are willing to fork over a large amount of money to the government, who supposedly knows how to spend it better than you... just how is that different than a Democrat?

If my taxes were actually going to "achievements" as opposed to "flesh bags", I might toss a few more shekels Uncle Sam's way.

[Godzilla]

OK, then what are the options the candidates are proposing that we should have available other than deportation and amnesty?

I think Bigun had a decent proposal on this thread.

It was also the same idea Romney had.

Cut the incentives.

---

However, some will stay.  But in my view, those are the immigrants we want.  The immigrants of old came to America to make a better life for themselves, not for a handout.  And those that would stay after the handouts are gone are in the same mold.

Unfortunately, that is not loud enough, brash enough, 'in your face' enough for some Republicans.  And Trump has capitalized on that.

It's gotten to the point where it looks very much like 1 in 4 Republicans just want to stand in front of Congress, drop their pants, and take a dump (on live television) on the desk of their Congressman.  All piss-n-vinegar, but no actual substance.

Did I mention I hate that sort of thing?

[Bigun]

Well it could be that we regard any state gvmnt which sets itself up to welcome these criminals openly as being in violation of Federal law..etc..etc.. and many other such acts as Bigun has suggested and in the meantime deport the mentally ill and criminal and etc..orwe could elect a Peter Pan who waves his magic wand and the whole problem goes away somehow.

Darn! Why didn't I think of that?  Peter Pan and a magic wand! Yeah that should work!

[EdinVA]

I think Bigun had a decent proposal on this thread.

It was also the same idea Romney had.

Cut the incentives.

---

However, some will stay.  But in my view, those are the immigrants we want.  The immigrants of old came to America to make a better life for themselves, not for a handout.  And those that would stay after the handouts are gone are in the same mold.

Unfortunately, that is not loud enough, brash enough, 'in your face' enough for some Republicans.  And Trump has capitalized on that.

It's gotten to the point where it looks very much like 1 in 4 Republicans just want to stand in front of Congress, drop their pants, and take a dump (on live television) on the desk of their Congressman.  All piss-n-vinegar, but no actual substance.

Did I mention I hate that sort of thing?

This is good but Romney is not running.
The other one about eliminating sanctuary cities/states is good also.

The problem I have with all of these is they are single dimensional, focused on Mexicans and my biggest concern is those from OTHER than Mexico.
So we do away with "free stuff" and eliminate sanctuaries, what do we do if they still do not leave?
Need to have a contingency plan.

[alicewonders]

I think Bigun had a decent proposal on this thread.

It was also the same idea Romney had.

Cut the incentives.

---

However, some will stay.  But in my view, those are the immigrants we want.  The immigrants of old came to America to make a better life for themselves, not for a handout.  And those that would stay after the handouts are gone are in the same mold.

Unfortunately, that is not loud enough, brash enough, 'in your face' enough for some Republicans.  And Trump has capitalized on that.

It's gotten to the point where it looks very much like 1 in 4 Republicans just want to stand in front of Congress, drop their pants, and take a dump (on live television) on the desk of their Congressman.  All piss-n-vinegar, but no actual substance.

Did I mention I hate that sort of thing?

Why is it that some people leave the word "illegal" off of the front of the word "immigrants" when discussing this issue?

That makes a HUGE difference in what is being discussed.

[libertybele]

Why is it that some people leave the word "illegal" off of the front of the word "immigrants" when discussing this issue?

That makes a HUGE difference in what is being discussed.

Good question.  I find it easier just to call them "ILLEGALS" period.   

[olde north church]

Why is it that some people leave the word "illegal" off of the front of the word "immigrants" when discussing this issue?

That makes a HUGE difference in what is being discussed.

I noticed the very same thing, Jin-jah!   

[alicewonders]

I noticed the very same thing, Jin-jah!   

 

[Godzilla]

Why is it that some people leave the word "illegal" off of the front of the word "immigrants" when discussing this issue?

That makes a HUGE difference in what is being discussed.

Does it?  Does it, really?

Are you really saying that breaking immigration law is the only criteria for one's objection to these immigrants being here?

If true, then should a law be passed granting them citizenship... you would have no problem with these people being in the country.  That would make the issue go away... and be a lot cheaper than deporting them.

However, I really doubt that passing an amnesty act would suddenly make everyone okay with this.

Which means that the term 'illegal immigrant' really has no bearing here.

[alicewonders]

Does it?  Does it, really?

Are you really saying that breaking immigration law is the only criteria for one's objection to these immigrants being here?

If true, then should a law be passed granting them citizenship... you would have no problem with these people being in the country.  That would make the issue go away... and be a lot cheaper than deporting them.

However, I really doubt that passing an amnesty act would suddenly make everyone okay with this.

Which means that the term 'illegal immigrant' really has no bearing here.

???

Granting amnesty to a person that has broken the law is not right, and is a slap in the face of people that waited in line and came here legally. 

Your argument makes no sense.

[Fishrrman]

Godzilla wrote above (I thought that I was the only dinosaur that could write):
[[ You can't reconcile the two positions.  If you want that sort of government 'wunderwerk', you'd best be willing to *PAY* for it. ]]

It will cost the government (and we the taxpayers who fund it) LESS to "build the wall", create a secure border, and deport the most undesirable illegals, than it would to "support" them for the rest of their lives via social services:
Healthcare. Education. Food stamps. Social Security. Medicare if they live long enough.

If you want to talk about REAL cost, total those numbers up.

An effective border barrier would cost chump change by comparison.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

???

Granting amnesty to a person that has broken the law is not right, and is a slap in the face of people that waited in line and came here legally. 

Your argument makes no sense.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

[Bigun]

Makes a lot of sense to me.

Why am I not surprised?

[DCPatriot]

Does it?  Does it, really?

Are you really saying that breaking immigration law is the only criteria for one's objection to these immigrants being here?

If true, then should a law be passed granting them citizenship... you would have no problem with these people being in the country.  That would make the issue go away... and be a lot cheaper than deporting them.

However, I really doubt that passing an amnesty act would suddenly make everyone okay with this.

Which means that the term 'illegal immigrant' really has no bearing here.

I used to be where you are now.

My feelings were that if a person could run the gauntlet and make it here, become gainfully employed, pay his own rent, buy his own food, etc., it shouldn't make a difference that just because they jumped the line made them subject to deportation.

I still feel that way.

But, times aren't the same as they were back in 2001 -2006.  We've had a decade of mass invasion by people who can't feed themselves, and who have overloaded the system.  No job prospects.

In the meantime, we've got an entire generation of college graduates with meaningless degrees, living at home with their parents.  If they're lucky.

I differentiate among the illegals this way:  If you have a job and are not on government welfare, you are welcome.  Give them green cards and a path to citizenship.

For anybody else...sayo-effin'nara!  That goes for dependent minor children, too.  Get back on that boxcar and haul your a$$ back to wherever you came from.

Now....where were we?   

[alicewonders]

I used to be where you are now.

My feelings were that if a person could run the gauntlet and make it here, become gainfully employed, pay his own rent, buy his own food, etc., it shouldn't make a difference that just because they jumped the line made them subject to deportation.

I still feel that way.

But, times aren't the same as they were back in 2001 -2006.  We've had a decade of mass invasion by people who can't feed themselves, and who have overloaded the system.  No job prospects.

In the meantime, we've got an entire generation of college graduates with meaningless degrees, living at home with their parents.  If they're lucky.

I differentiate among the illegals this way:  If you have a job and are not on government welfare, you are welcome.  Give them green cards and a path to citizenship.

For anybody else...sayo-effin'nara!  That goes for dependent minor children, too.  Get back on that boxcar and haul your a$$ back to wherever you came from.

Now....where were we?

I think it sets a bad example DC.  You come here illegally - go back and apply for a Visa.  Do it the right way.  Are laws OK for some people to break and not others? 

The system needs to be examined to make it easier for people to come here legally, after background checks, etc.  Everyone should be documented - for God's sake - I sure have to be!

[Bigun]

I think it sets a bad example DC.  You come here illegally - go back and apply for a Visa.  Do it the right way.  Are laws OK for some people to break and not others? 

The system needs to be examined to make it easier for people to come here legally, after background checks, etc.  Everyone should be documented - for God's sake - I sure have to be!

Absolutely right Alice.   

[Godzilla]

I think it sets a bad example DC.  You come here illegally - go back and apply for a Visa.  Do it the right way.  Are laws OK for some people to break and not others? 

The system needs to be examined to make it easier for people to come here legally, after background checks, etc.  Everyone should be documented - for God's sake - I sure have to be!

The point is that if your only argument against immigrants is their legal status... their legal status can simply be changed through the passage of an amnesty bill.

With that, they would become legal immigrants.

And your own statement shows that this would not be acceptable.  So the issue isn't simply just a matter of law.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Why am I not surprised?

Because it is consistent with what I've been writing for years.  The ability to remember what I wrote on a subject 6 months ago is why I can't run for President.

[alicewonders]

The point is that if your only argument against immigrants is their legal status... their legal status can simply be changed through the passage of an amnesty bill.

With that, they would become legal immigrants.

And your own statement shows that this would not be acceptable.  So the issue isn't simply just a matter of law.

Not sure I follow your logic.  Amnesty is not an acceptable solution for me - it is rewarding bad behavior - the behavior being that of entering the US illegally.  I know people that have come here legally and it took them a lot of time and expense to do it.  I respect them for that.  I understand coming here to make a better life for you and your family - I understand that and would maybe try to do the same if I were in their shoes.

I don't completely blame them because our politicians have practically invited them to do so, with the lure of amnesty.  But two wrongs don't make a right. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

 

[Godzilla]

Not sure I follow your logic.  Amnesty is not an acceptable solution for me - it is rewarding bad behavior - the behavior being that of entering the US illegally.  I know people that have come here legally and it took them a lot of time and expense to do it.  I respect them for that.  I understand coming here to make a better life for you and your family - I understand that and would maybe try to do the same if I were in their shoes.

I don't completely blame them because our politicians have practically invited them to do so, with the lure of amnesty.  But two wrongs don't make a right.

This is as simple as I can make it:

You: They are breaking the law!  That's why it's bad.
Me: What happens if the law is changed?
You: It's still bad.
Me: Then it's not about the law, is it?

What I suspect is that for many, it's a case of morality.  Someone did something wrong and that should not be rewarded.

It's just that we need to remember that laws, in and of themselves, have no morals... and can be changed.  And if we campaign on the basis of 'law'... the Democratic response will be to just 'change the law'.

Which knocks the wind out of our sails.