|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 03 2016 21:34 NukeD wrote:
No, actually they need legal immigration economically. The both sides are at fault then, the immigrants for not obeying immigration laws and the government for not making sensible changes to the system.
Lol, okay. Both sides are at fault, lets compromise!!
As if this was about two sides. This is about a trillion interests colliding. Certain factions within the US government which have been escalating the war on drugs for decades, thus in many cases creating mass emigration from quasi-war-torn zones in the first place (Do you ever wonder how much has to happen for a person before he or she decides to give up on his or her home? It's not like the whole world has bought into the american dream and everyone is just waiting to move to the US anyway). Latin American governments entangling themselves with the American war effort as a way to get rid of undesirable populations. Employers in the agricultural business in California, Arizona, Georgia and other states who desire a cheaper labour force than either legal immigration or nativeborn US Americans can provide. Social services which receive money from illegal immigrants (besides obviously spending a lot of money for the benefit of the economy as well as thus paying VAT etc, they also pay into social security, without actually getting anything out of it if/when they ever were to retire) not really having an interest in anything changing.
|
On June 03 2016 21:29 NukeD wrote:
In light of your post Plansix, I'm curious, how would it work out if all of the illegal immigrants had to file official claims for VISAs, say during the next 3 years, and then if they do not meet the requirments, they get deported? Lets say the quotta does not apply to the people already in the US for more than 2 years. I think I read somewhere that this is what Trump is advocating.
Is this acceptable under the current immigrantion requirement policies or do they still need a thorough change?
I think the democrats and many path to citizenship advocates would be supportive of a system like that. Anything that accepted that mass deportations are not a solution.
The problem with the discussions is that it never gets there. The GOP has said they would be open to a system that wouldn’t punish illegal immigrants that came forward, but they would need to apply for a visa only after returning to their home county. So basically willingly deporting themselves. Immigration experts have said any system that requires illegal immigrants to return to their home country is doomed to failure because they do not trust the US system to let them come back or keep their word. And there is an ongoing theory that the GOP is aware of this and simply makes this a requirement to stall any discussion on the issue, because Hispanics overwhelmingly vote democrat. Of course, that is because the GOP is pushing for deportations, which Hispanics are overwhelming against. But that logic seems lost on them.
The immigration system has deep flaws right now and that need to be address. Even legal immigrants get screwed over and lose their visa minor criminal violations. There was a story about one guy that was almost deported because his charged with driving on an expired registration for his car. He plead guilty because it was a minor infraction, but that triggered a flag on his Visa because he plead guilty to a crime.
The system is broke and people like Trump want to fix it by throwing everyone out of the country and building a wall. Which is about as sensible as throwing everyone who uses illegal drugs in jail. It doesn’t ask the fundamental question of why people are breaking the law in the first place.
And that mass deportations would be a nightmare. That is like deporting the entire population of New York City. Expect a lot of the families have children that are US citizens because the politicians have sat on this issue for so long.
|
On June 03 2016 19:08 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2016 17:35 NukeD wrote:
One thing I don't get is why people attack Trump on his position on illegal immigration. I mean its ILLEGAL, why on earth would you defend it. I think most of us here in europe don't understand the outrage on the idea of deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. What am I missing? I defend very many things that are illegal. Sometimes laws suck.
This is actually insane. You understand this right?
|
On June 03 2016 22:05 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2016 19:08 Surth wrote:On June 03 2016 17:35 NukeD wrote:
One thing I don't get is why people attack Trump on his position on illegal immigration. I mean its ILLEGAL, why on earth would you defend it. I think most of us here in europe don't understand the outrage on the idea of deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. What am I missing? I defend very many things that are illegal. Sometimes laws suck. This is actually insane. You understand this right?
There is currently a law on the books in my state that I can shoot anyone crossing the border from Rhode Island. It’s pretty old. And I think there is one requiring a license for a goatee as well. Also old. There are currently two laws in cities that are straight up illegal as ruled on by our state supreme court. They are still enforced by the cities because no one has been willing to pay to have them challenged and overturned.
Sometimes laws suck or are broken.
|
On June 03 2016 22:05 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2016 19:08 Surth wrote:On June 03 2016 17:35 NukeD wrote:
One thing I don't get is why people attack Trump on his position on illegal immigration. I mean its ILLEGAL, why on earth would you defend it. I think most of us here in europe don't understand the outrage on the idea of deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. What am I missing? I defend very many things that are illegal. Sometimes laws suck. This is actually insane. You understand this right?
It isn't insane at all. Here, read this. Even though I pretty much despise Thoreau, his work here is good.
|
On June 03 2016 22:05 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2016 19:08 Surth wrote:On June 03 2016 17:35 NukeD wrote:
One thing I don't get is why people attack Trump on his position on illegal immigration. I mean its ILLEGAL, why on earth would you defend it. I think most of us here in europe don't understand the outrage on the idea of deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. What am I missing? I defend very many things that are illegal. Sometimes laws suck. This is actually insane. You understand this right?
It may seem obvious to you, but it ain't obvious - please do explain! 
|
On June 03 2016 22:05 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2016 19:08 Surth wrote:On June 03 2016 17:35 NukeD wrote:
One thing I don't get is why people attack Trump on his position on illegal immigration. I mean its ILLEGAL, why on earth would you defend it. I think most of us here in europe don't understand the outrage on the idea of deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. What am I missing? I defend very many things that are illegal. Sometimes laws suck. This is actually insane. You understand this right?
It is not insane in the slightest. The whole point of having a legislative is changing laws. Changing laws can lead to things that are illegal becoming legal. Unless you work under the assumption that the current laws are timeless and perfect, it is quite reasonable to oppose some laws and thus defend something that is illegal.
|
On June 03 2016 13:52 Plansix wrote:
Is that judges family from Mexico?
His parents were legal immigrants from Mexico.
He was born in Indiana.
|
I never bothered to look up what GOP meant, so in my mind I just refer to it as Good Ol' Party.
|
well, you were pretty close with your guess 
|
A relevant article...
Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say
“This is how authoritarianism starts, with a president who does not respect the judiciary,” Mr. Post said. “You can criticize the judicial system, you can criticize individual cases, you can criticize individual judges. But the president has to be clear that the law is the law and that he enforces the law. That is his constitutional obligation.”
'Beyond the attack on judicial independence is a broader question of Mr. Trump’s commitment to the separation of powers and to the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution. Randy E. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown and an architect of the first major challenge to President Obama’s health care law, said he had grave doubts on both fronts.'
“You would like a president with some idea about constitutional limits on presidential powers, on congressional powers, on federal powers,” Professor Barnett said, “and I doubt he has any awareness of such limits.”
Source
|
On June 03 2016 23:15 zlefin wrote:His parents were legal immigrants from Mexico. He was born in Indiana.
I would not have been shocked to find out the Judge was from another South American country and Trump had just assumed it was Mexico because that is the only South American nation he thinks exists. But of course, Trump is going to harp the Judge’s race because that is how he deflects attention from his university of fraud. And it riles up his base.
And I like how Trump is calling for people to “dig into this judges past”. Just think of what he will do with the FBI. I bet he will threaten to remove the judge once he is elected in the coming weeks.
|
The sad thing is that there are plenty of Trump fans who laud him for his lack of both knowledge of and respect for how laws work in this country lol.
|
"When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength.
That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak... as being spit on by the rest of the world."
The new leader of the free world...
|
Here's to hoping Ken Paxton goes down in flames
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has lost his latest bid for dismissal of the securities fraud charges he faces.
A Dallas appeals court on Wednesday upheld the indictments, which accuse Paxton of misleading investors in private business dealings before he took office as the top lawyer for Texas. Paxton's side asked the 5th Court of Appeals last month to overturn a lower court’s decision not to dismiss the case against him.
"We’re very pleased with the ruling," said Kent Schaffer, one of the special prosecutors in the case. "We’re looking forward to trial, and we will be preparing for trial."
Paxton's team noted that the appeals court "did not hold that Mr. Paxton's main claims were without merit, rather were premature at this stage of the proceedings." In a statement, Paxton lawyer Bill Mateja also said the team was considering whether to appeal the decision to the highest criminal court in Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Schaffer and the other special prosecutor in the case, Brian Wice, issued a statement noting how quickly it took the court to reach a unanimous decision — three weeks after oral argument — and said they "are confident that the Court of Criminal Appeals will reject Mr. Paxton's next round of appeals as surely and as swiftly as the court of appeals did today."
Paxton has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which were handed up last year by a Collin County grand jury. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought a similar case against him earlier this year.
During a hearing before the court last month, Paxton's lawyers most prominently argued that the grand jury that indicted him was improperly selected. The court rejected that argument in its ruling Wednesday.
"After reviewing the record and, in particular, the process used by the district judge, we conclude the complained-of method of selecting the grand jury is not a complaint that would render the grand jury illegally formed," Chief Justice Carolyn Wright wrote.
Appeals court upholds fraud charges against Paxton
|
On June 03 2016 23:33 DickMcFanny wrote:
"When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength.
That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak... as being spit on by the rest of the world."
The new leader of the free world...
America is seen as weak because we don’t deal with our protesters with tanks. Sure, violence is bad and attacking citizens for protesting is a violation of their basic civil rights and the constitution. But people see China as strong and we have to look at why.
Maybe its those constitutional rights that make America weak? Like the ones that let the press and people mock the government? They don’t let that happen in China and they are strong.
|
On June 03 2016 16:43 Wegandi wrote:
I can't be the only person looking at this as lose-lose. This election is going to be Nero vs Caligula, and in the end we all end up losing. The Democrats and Republicans are god awful. How about we just skip to the end and let bygones be bygones and let the "red" states and "blue" states go their separate ways. Why would anyone want to be in a union with people they hate? This country is beyond dysfunctional.
yeh, lets just all move into our own cabins in the woods
|
Can we make an exception and re-vote Obama into office? I mean, Roosevelt served almost four terms.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I'd vote for an Obama third term if it were an option. He's better than both frontrunners right now.
|
We'd have to finish a constitutional amendment in time; AND do him as a write-in candidates, as it's too late to get on the ballot through the regular processes. So that'd be infeasible I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
