ILLEGAL Immigration is Bad For America:"Undocumented Americans" are ILLEGAL ALIENS

[Doc]

3 hours ago, daz28 said:

The right's MSM touting scaravans in an attempt to gain voters is nothing new at all, but somehow they magically stopped in 2016, while illegals numbers still remained the same.  trump was better with immigration, but he had all of Congress, and did little to nothing better than the status quo.  He did just enough to feed his sheep with ICE. 

 

What does 2016 have to do with today?  Why do we have 5X more under Joe (happy?) than under Trump?

 

And no, Trump didn't "have all of Congress."  You need 60 votes to get anything passed in the Senate, except judicial appointments and budget reconciliation.

[daz28]

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

What does 2016 have to do with today?  Why do we have 5X more under Joe (happy?) than under Trump?

 

And no, Trump didn't "have all of Congress."  You need 60 votes to get anything passed in the Senate, except judicial appointments and budget reconciliation.

It's clearly worse, but it's always been an issue.  My point was the republicans want it to be a bigger issue when it's time to get votes.  Without that issue, they can't use it to appeal to voters.  Kind of what's happening right now with trump shutting down the bill.  As you've stated, they need 60 votes, but they could have forced democrats to vote on it.  trump did manage remain in Mexico, but that didn't help illegal crossings.  Like I keep saying over and over, when you get a bipartisan bill, you better take it while the getting is good.  

[Doc]

15 minutes ago, daz28 said:

It's clearly worse, but it's always been an issue.  My point was the republicans want it to be a bigger issue when it's time to get votes.  Without that issue, they can't use it to appeal to voters.  Kind of what's happening right now with trump shutting down the bill.  As you've stated, they need 60 votes, but they could have forced democrats to vote on it.  trump did manage remain in Mexico, but that didn't help illegal crossings.  Like I keep saying over and over, when you get a bipartisan bill, you better take it while the getting is good.  

 

You're joking, right?  Repubs have been talking about illegal immigration non-stop for decades now.  Dems OTOH tried to deny there was a problem during this current Admin until some illegals' criminality made headlines and polls started to hurt Dems.  So then they pretended to care and put forth a terrible border bill tied to funding for other countries when just reversing Joe's EOs would have helped immensely, and a standalone bill for increased funding would have been great and approved by all (yeah, right).  But again, doing that would have given Trump a win.

[daz28]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

But again, doing that would have given Trump a win.

So you do know how politics works, and why passing bipartisan bills when you can is important.  The current political culture changes VERY fast.  Would you care to guess who said this:

 

So this is not going to be a free ride. It's not going to be some instant amnesty. What's going to happen is you are going to pay a significant fine. You are going to learn English. You are going to -- you are going to go to the back of the line so that you don't get ahead of somebody who was in Mexico City applying legally. But after you've done these things over a certain period of time you can earn your citizenship, so that it's not -- it's not something that is guaranteed or automatic. You've got to earn it. But over time you give people an opportunity.

Now, it only works though if you do all the pieces. I think the American people, they appreciate and believe in immigration. But they can't have a situation where you just have half a million people pouring over the border without any kind of mechanism to control it. So we've got to deal with that at the same time as we deal in a humane fashion with folks who are putting down roots here, have become our neighbors, have become our friends, they may have children who are U.S. citizens. That's the kind of comprehensive approach that we have to take. 

 

They key part is, "Now, it only works though if you do all the pieces".  immigration is more complex than saying Biden can fix this if he wanted to.  

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

So you do know how politics works, and why passing bipartisan bills when you can is important.  The current political culture changes VERY fast.  Would you care to guess who said this:

 

So this is not going to be a free ride. It's not going to be some instant amnesty. What's going to happen is you are going to pay a significant fine. You are going to learn English. You are going to -- you are going to go to the back of the line so that you don't get ahead of somebody who was in Mexico City applying legally. But after you've done these things over a certain period of time you can earn your citizenship, so that it's not -- it's not something that is guaranteed or automatic. You've got to earn it. But over time you give people an opportunity.

Now, it only works though if you do all the pieces. I think the American people, they appreciate and believe in immigration. But they can't have a situation where you just have half a million people pouring over the border without any kind of mechanism to control it. So we've got to deal with that at the same time as we deal in a humane fashion with folks who are putting down roots here, have become our neighbors, have become our friends, they may have children who are U.S. citizens. That's the kind of comprehensive approach that we have to take. 

 

They key part is, "Now, it only works though if you do all the pieces".  immigration is more complex than saying Biden can fix this if he wanted to.  

 

There is no need to pass a bipartisan bill when the crisis was caused by one man/party: Joe/the Dems.  If you want to claim it's not their fault, go right ahead, it's a free country.  But everyone except those on the left who are just playing politics know who the real culprits are and that's why it's an anchor for the Dems.  They can't pass it off on the Repubs by proposing a terrible border bill and getting the vapors that it wasn't passed unanimously.

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

There is no need to pass a bipartisan bill when the crisis was caused by one man/party: Joe/the Dems.  If you want to claim it's not their fault, go right ahead, it's a free country.  But everyone except those on the left who are just playing politics know who the real culprits are and that's why it's an anchor for the Dems.  They can't pass it off on the Repubs by proposing a terrible border bill and getting the vapors that it wasn't passed unanimously.

When was the last meaningful immigration bill passed?  1986?  That's an awful lot of "culprits" over that time who really weren't much tougher on immigration than Biden is now.  He may be doing a bad job, but this notion he invited it is absolute BS.  

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

When was the last meaningful immigration bill passed?  1986?  That's an awful lot of "culprits" over that time who really weren't much tougher on immigration than Biden is now.  He may be doing a bad job, but this notion he invited it is absolute BS.  

 

No, it's not.  He's the one who issued 94 EOs reversing most of what Trump did.  Illegals knew that with a Dem in Office, they would allowed into the country as an "asylum" seeker and then could just disappear.

[JDHillFan]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

When was the last meaningful immigration bill passed?  1986?  That's an awful lot of "culprits" over that time who really weren't much tougher on immigration than Biden is now.  He may be doing a bad job, but this notion he invited it is absolute BS.  

Biden owns it. A colossal f-up from his first day in office. Those awful republicans in the first quarter of 2024 are the baddies though. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/01/27/biden-immigration-policy-trump/

 

Biden signed more executive orders related to immigration than any other topic on his first day in office. He’s taken more than 500 executive actions since then, already surpassing former president Donald Trump’s four-year total, according to a recent tally by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI).

But one of Biden’s most active areas of policymaking has become one of his biggest vulnerabilities to reelection. The president’s management of the southern border and immigration is his worst-rated issue in polls, 

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Biden owns it. A colossal f-up from his first day in office. Those awful republicans in the first quarter of 2024 are the baddies though. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/01/27/biden-immigration-policy-trump/

 

Biden signed more executive orders related to immigration than any other topic on his first day in office. He’s taken more than 500 executive actions since then, already surpassing former president Donald Trump’s four-year total, according to a recent tally by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI).

But one of Biden’s most active areas of policymaking has become one of his biggest vulnerabilities to reelection. The president’s management of the southern border and immigration is his worst-rated issue in polls, 

 

500?  Damn!  I heard 94.

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

No, it's not.  He's the one who issued 94 EOs reversing most of what Trump did.  Illegals knew that with a Dem in Office, they would allowed into the country as an "asylum" seeker and then could just disappear.

Why weren't they doing it for the 30 years before trump then?  You show the specific executive orders trump gave that was keeping millions of people from coming over, because his numbers weren't great, either.  Obama's were better.  Also, just because he wasn't catching as many doesn't mean they were deterred.  If you mean him ending catch and release, many of these refugees would be glad to have US pay for their detention and care.  We don't have the facilities for that, and it isn't saving any money.

 

While the raw numbers are much higher under Biden — 5 million encounters compared with 1.4 million under Trump in those time frames — the percentages for the two administrations were similar: 47% removed under Trump and 51% under Biden. Bier’s estimates are for illegal immigration between ports of entry. (As our bar graph above shows, both administrations had removal rates above 50% when Title 42 was being used to expel people.)

 

Total deportations by ICE hovered around 400,000 annually in each of the first four years of Obama's presidency. Interior deportations alone exceeded 150,000 annually from fiscal 2009 to 2012 – far greater than Trump's 81,603 during fiscal 2017.

 

If you're just going to scream BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN on an extremely complex ongoing problem, then I don't think there's anything left to discuss.  

 

 

19 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Biden owns it. A colossal f-up from his first day in office. Those awful republicans in the first quarter of 2024 are the baddies though. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/01/27/biden-immigration-policy-trump/

 

Biden signed more executive orders related to immigration than any other topic on his first day in office. He’s taken more than 500 executive actions since then, already surpassing former president Donald Trump’s four-year total, according to a recent tally by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI).

But one of Biden’s most active areas of policymaking has become one of his biggest vulnerabilities to reelection. The president’s management of the southern border and immigration is his worst-rated issue in polls, 

Who owned it before Biden? 

[JDHillFan]

11 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Who owned it before Biden? 

Glad you agree that Biden owns it. To answer your disingenuous question - every  jackass that voters have sent to Washington for decades. Only one administration has allowed things to spiral completely out of control however. A colossal f-up every step of the way but at least they have begun to smarten up (by reacting to polls) a few months away from an election. 

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Glad you agree that Biden owns it. To answer your disingenuous question - every  jackass that voters have sent to Washington for decades. Only one administration has allowed things to spiral completely out of control however. A colossal f-up every step of the way but at least they have begun to smarten up (by reacting to polls) a few months away from an election. 

Speaking of disingenuous, do you want Biden to capture and detain all of these immigrants, like Trump was somewhat trying to do?  I'm no accountant, but that sounds expensive, and if they're fleeing a s-hole country, they probably would consider that treatment an upgrade, giving them even more reason to come.  The only solution is comprehensive immigration reform.  Almost sounds like you're mad they're "smartening up", and are happy the republicans have the issue to bring up.  

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

 

[Doc]

9 hours ago, daz28 said:

Why weren't they doing it for the 30 years before trump then?  You show the specific executive orders trump gave that was keeping millions of people from coming over, because his numbers weren't great, either.  Obama's were better.  Also, just because he wasn't catching as many doesn't mean they were deterred.  If you mean him ending catch and release, many of these refugees would be glad to have US pay for their detention and care.  We don't have the facilities for that, and it isn't saving any money.

 

While the raw numbers are much higher under Biden — 5 million encounters compared with 1.4 million under Trump in those time frames — the percentages for the two administrations were similar: 47% removed under Trump and 51% under Biden. Bier’s estimates are for illegal immigration between ports of entry. (As our bar graph above shows, both administrations had removal rates above 50% when Title 42 was being used to expel people.)

 

Total deportations by ICE hovered around 400,000 annually in each of the first four years of Obama's presidency. Interior deportations alone exceeded 150,000 annually from fiscal 2009 to 2012 – far greater than Trump's 81,603 during fiscal 2017.

 

If you're just going to scream BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN on an extremely complex ongoing problem, then I don't think there's anything left to discuss.  

 

If you are unwilling or incapable of seeing that Biden's actions, which started on his first day in office, haven't been the biggest contributor to illegals entering our country and (as per Eric Adams) "destroying" our cities, yes, there's nothing left to discuss.

[daz28]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

If you are unwilling or incapable of seeing that Biden's actions, which started on his first day in office, haven't been the biggest contributor to illegals entering our country and (as per Eric Adams) "destroying" our cities, yes, there's nothing left to discuss.

I think we're past discussing that Biden has done a lousy job, and are onto what can be done to fix it.  Unless of course if you want to keep harping.  

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I think we're past discussing that Biden has done a lousy job, and are onto what can be done to fix it.  Unless of course if you want to keep harping.  

 

If you had admitted that a long time ago, there wouldn't have been any need for harping.  

 

And I've already said what can he done to fix it.  Undo everything Joe did on his own for starters.  But he won't, because it gives Trump a win.  Then instruct the Dems to craft a standalone bill to fund border security and revamp the asylum process.

[daz28]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

If you had admitted that a long time ago, there wouldn't have been any need for harping.  

 

And I've already said what can he done to fix it.  Undo everything Joe did on his own for starters.  But he won't, because it gives Trump a win.  Then instruct the Dems to craft a standalone bill to fund border security and revamp the asylum process.

Pretty sure I said from the get-go I thought he wasn't doing a good job??  My only point was he didn't invent the immigration problem, he just amplified it.  It doesn't need to be standalone.  Johnson is now looking at the aid package, and is just tweaking the language to be a loan for Ukraine.  Why it's not a loan for Israel is beyond me, but he could have changed the language weeks ago and got this done already. 

[Doc]

55 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Pretty sure I said from the get-go I thought he wasn't doing a good job??  My only point was he didn't invent the immigration problem, he just amplified it.  It doesn't need to be standalone.  Johnson is now looking at the aid package, and is just tweaking the language to be a loan for Ukraine.  Why it's not a loan for Israel is beyond me, but he could have changed the language weeks ago and got this done already. 

 

No one said Joe invented the immigration problem.  Amplified it definitely and that's what you seemed to take umbrage with.  But moving on...

 

Why not have a standalone border bill?  Why does it have to be tied to something else?  Beyond the Dems not wanting to secure the border but wanting aid for Ukraine, that is.  

 

And are you saying Johnson is looking at the border bill and considering it if it just gives aid to Ukraine?  Or just a standalone Ukraine aid bill?

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No one said Joe invented the immigration problem.  Amplified it definitely and that's what you seemed to take umbrage with.  But moving on...

 

Why not have a standalone border bill?  Why does it have to be tied to something else?  Beyond the Dems not wanting to secure the border but wanting aid for Ukraine, that is.  

 

And are you saying Johnson is looking at the border bill and considering it if it just gives aid to Ukraine?  Or just a standalone Ukraine aid bill?

There hasn't been much details other than that he wants to change the language of the aid to be a loan for Ukraine.  

[US Egg]

Gracias por las armas!

 

Will they get them for free too?

Edited March 18 by US Egg

[daz28]

9 minutes ago, US Egg said:

Gracias por las armas!

 

Will they get them for free too?

There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully.

 

Do I like it? No, but either you follow the Constitution on everything or nothing. 

[Tommy Callahan]

 

 

Dem policies create victims.  

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

🎯 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

🎯 

 

 

[LeviF]

 

[LeviF]

On 3/18/2024 at 4:54 PM, daz28 said:

There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully.

 

Do I like it? No, but either you follow the Constitution on everything or nothing. 

This post gave me cancer. 
 

“The people” does not include illegals. “Our posterity” does not include illegals. 
 

As much of a disaster as the reconstruction amendments were/are, we can hardly blame the 14th for this one, since the language of the 2nd makes it very clear it is for citizens only, thereby rendering it not a “liberty” that a State has a duty to leave to every “person.”

[daz28]

1 hour ago, LeviF said:

This post gave me cancer. 
 

“The people” does not include illegals. “Our posterity” does not include illegals. 
 

As much of a disaster as the reconstruction amendments were/are, we can hardly blame the 14th for this one, since the language of the 2nd makes it very clear it is for citizens only, thereby rendering it not a “liberty” that a State has a duty to leave to every “person.”

I mean you and me might think that, but legal documents have legal definitions.  "The people" is EXACTLY the language used in the 2nd Amendment, no matter how bad you wished it said citizens.  

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[The Frankish Reich]

On 3/18/2024 at 2:54 PM, daz28 said:

There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully.

 

Do I like it? No, but either you follow the Constitution on everything or nothing. 

Excellent point.

Now, for the 2nd Amendment ... that's one of the "right of the people" ones. Traditionally there's been a lot of confusion about that. When it comes to the 4th Amendment's prohibition on illegal search and seizure, courts have treated "the people" as something that extends to citizens, permanent residents, and other aliens alike. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, we've always treated non-permanent resident aliens differently; they don't have a right to bear arms.

 

Until now?

[this is the mess that the Supreme Court decisions have created ... no aliens in the militia, hence no right to bear arms for aliens. At least that's how it should have been decided]

[daz28]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Excellent point.

Now, for the 2nd Amendment ... that's one of the "right of the people" ones. Traditionally there's been a lot of confusion about that. When it comes to the 4th Amendment's prohibition on illegal search and seizure, courts have treated "the people" as something that extends to citizens, permanent residents, and other aliens alike. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, we've always treated non-permanent resident aliens differently; they don't have a right to bear arms.

 

Until now?

[this is the mess that the Supreme Court decisions have created ... no aliens in the militia, hence no right to bear arms for aliens. At least that's how it should have been decided]

To me this seems to point to the notion that the militia and right to bear arms ARE separate ideas, and that should be a semicolon not a comma.  Clerical error.  I don't expect the SCOTUS will notice that, though.  Dumbest group I've ever seen.  

[Tommy Callahan]

3 hours ago, daz28 said:

To me this seems to point to the notion that the militia and right to bear arms ARE separate ideas, and that should be a semicolon not a comma.  Clerical error.  I don't expect the SCOTUS will notice that, though.  Dumbest group I've ever seen.  

200 years of case law and a few supreme courts disagree with your parroted opinion..

 

But another anti second shows it's stripes 

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

200 years of case law and a few supreme courts disagree with your parroted opinion..

 

But another anti second shows it's stripes 

I guess this means what ya'll call illegals can be militia too then, right?  Can't have it both ways.  Unless you're ultra magga, and the logic gets warped to suit.  

[LeviF]

7 hours ago, daz28 said:

I mean you and me might think that, but legal documents have legal definitions.  "The people" is EXACTLY the language used in the 2nd Amendment, no matter how bad you wished it said citizens.  

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But that’s what I’m saying. “The people” has never meant anything but “citizens of the United States” in the context of the Constitution.  
 

You essentially believe that “the people” and “persons” means the same thing, though any fifth grader who has read any 18th century political literature can easily tell you otherwise. 

[Gregg]

[Gregg]

Go Ron.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/florida-gov-ron-desantis-says-he-ll-send-haitian-migrants-to-martha-s-vineyard/ar-BB1kdptg?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=37d82422f69848d4b07bc24b1669eaab&ei=9

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

6 minutes ago, Gregg said:

Go Ron.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/florida-gov-ron-desantis-says-he-ll-send-haitian-migrants-to-martha-s-vineyard/ar-BB1kdptg?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=37d82422f69848d4b07bc24b1669eaab&ei=9

 

 

To avoid Florida, Biden will initiate transportation of Haitians to Mexican border crossing points or directly to the US while leaving American citizens behind to fend for themselves. 

 

And I'm not joking.  Rather thinking of the dumbest and most absurd thing possible and predicting these clowns will do it.

[BillsFanNC]

4 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Are illegals citizens?  

 

It's moronic and causing victims for cops not to be able to call ice and have criminals deported. 

 

You really don't grasp the topics you rant about.  Like the others you share the same script with 

 

Undocumented Americans. 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Undocumented Americans. 

What I absolutely love about the term "undocumented" is they make it sound like some sort of clerical error.  Not breaking and avoiding customs and immigration law. 

 

What's next? 

Calling bank robberies undocumented depositor withdrawals? 

Rapists?  Undocumented sex partners

Car jackers?  Undocumented vehicle owners.