|
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 04 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:46 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. Yet more people have been deported under Obama than ever were under Bush. The GOP is just keeping the issue alive because they know they have to compromise and its easier to say “secure the border first” over and over than address the problem. Because they know they can’t deport all 11 million illegal immigrants. Please, tell me more about how serious the Democrats and Obama are about stopping illegal immigration when they won't even call it by its name: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. What a fucking joke. Democrats have zero credibility on the issue (not that RINO's are much better).
I know, the name is really important. That is what we should be arguing about. No solving the problem. The main problem is that the GOP can't pander to their anti any form of immigration base and Hispanic citizens at the same time. They have to say they are going to deport everyone, even though they know it will never happen.
|
On June 04 2016 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:46 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. Yet more people have been deported under Obama than ever were under Bush. The GOP is just keeping the issue alive because they know they have to compromise and its easier to say “secure the border first” over and over than address the problem. Because they know they can’t deport all 11 million illegal immigrants. Please, tell me more about how serious the Democrats and Obama are about stopping illegal immigration when they won't even call it by its name: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. What a fucking joke. Democrats have zero credibility on the issue (not that RINO's are much better). Maybe the point of friction is that ILLEGAL people are actually still human beings no matter what kind of label you assign to them? Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to go full Judge Dredd on someone just because you declare them to be non persons?
We are a sovereign nation state. Not a fucking charity.
EDIT: Fixed.
|
On June 04 2016 03:52 xDaunt wrote:
We aren't a sovereign nation state. Not a fucking charity.
Freudian slip? 
The problem is, your sovereign nation state destroys a lot of shit in other sovereign nation states, often times undermining their sovereignty. Incidentally, it is from these nation states that many of those paralegal immigrants come.
|
On June 04 2016 03:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:46 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. Yet more people have been deported under Obama than ever were under Bush. The GOP is just keeping the issue alive because they know they have to compromise and its easier to say “secure the border first” over and over than address the problem. Because they know they can’t deport all 11 million illegal immigrants. Please, tell me more about how serious the Democrats and Obama are about stopping illegal immigration when they won't even call it by its name: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. What a fucking joke. Democrats have zero credibility on the issue (not that RINO's are much better). Maybe the point of friction is that ILLEGAL people are actually still human beings no matter what kind of label you assign to them? Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to go full Judge Dredd on someone just because you declare them to be non persons? We aren't a sovereign nation state. Not a fucking charity.
I am almost positive if push came to shove we could find 90% of the illegal immigrants and deport them over the course of several months but such an action would also without question cause a massive recession. So doing it before congresses actually comes up with a way to get the people we need into this country in a much faster manner then we are forced to rely on the status quo to fill those jobs which while horrible is the best option that does not involve waiting on congress which is like waiting on a snail to finish a marathon.
|
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.
Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true 
As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. The PC police are at work yet again, that my be true, but as the skin color of the average American grows ever darker, it'd probably be a good idea to learn how to talk to each other using words that don't immediately bring out the worst in everyone.
|
On June 04 2016 03:56 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:46 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. Yet more people have been deported under Obama than ever were under Bush. The GOP is just keeping the issue alive because they know they have to compromise and its easier to say “secure the border first” over and over than address the problem. Because they know they can’t deport all 11 million illegal immigrants. Please, tell me more about how serious the Democrats and Obama are about stopping illegal immigration when they won't even call it by its name: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. What a fucking joke. Democrats have zero credibility on the issue (not that RINO's are much better). Maybe the point of friction is that ILLEGAL people are actually still human beings no matter what kind of label you assign to them? Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to go full Judge Dredd on someone just because you declare them to be non persons? We aren't a sovereign nation state. Not a fucking charity. I am almost positive if push came to shove we could find 90% of the illegal immigrants and deport them over the course of several months but such an action would also without question cause a massive recession. So doing it before congresses actually comes up with a way to get the people we need into this country in a much faster manner then we are forced to rely on the status quo to fill those jobs which while horrible is the best option that does not involve waiting on congress which is like waiting on a snail to finish a marathon.
Of course we could deport them all. We've done it before (Operation Wetback).
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 04 2016 03:49 Surth wrote: RIPLEY 2016
Well I just had to click on the behind the scenes for Alien. There goes 2 hours of my day.
|
On June 04 2016 03:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:46 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. Yet more people have been deported under Obama than ever were under Bush. The GOP is just keeping the issue alive because they know they have to compromise and its easier to say “secure the border first” over and over than address the problem. Because they know they can’t deport all 11 million illegal immigrants. Please, tell me more about how serious the Democrats and Obama are about stopping illegal immigration when they won't even call it by its name: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. What a fucking joke. Democrats have zero credibility on the issue (not that RINO's are much better). Maybe the point of friction is that ILLEGAL people are actually still human beings no matter what kind of label you assign to them? Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to go full Judge Dredd on someone just because you declare them to be non persons? We are a sovereign nation state. Not a fucking charity. EDIT: Fixed.
Given that these illegal people by definition don't enjoy the things that the nation state supplies citizens with and presumably work their asses of in shitty jobs and live off the grid how makes this "charity" accusation sense? Those people aren't living off anybody else's labour, they can't.
|
Didn't the NAFTA actually damage pretty hard the agriculture on Mexico and those farmers tend to migrate now to the USA looking for work ? (genuinely asking, because i am not sure).
|
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.
Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!
|
On June 04 2016 03:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:46 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. Yet more people have been deported under Obama than ever were under Bush. The GOP is just keeping the issue alive because they know they have to compromise and its easier to say “secure the border first” over and over than address the problem. Because they know they can’t deport all 11 million illegal immigrants. Please, tell me more about how serious the Democrats and Obama are about stopping illegal immigration when they won't even call it by its name: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. What a fucking joke. Democrats have zero credibility on the issue (not that RINO's are much better). Maybe the point of friction is that ILLEGAL people are actually still human beings no matter what kind of label you assign to them? Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to go full Judge Dredd on someone just because you declare them to be non persons? We are a sovereign nation state. Not a fucking charity. EDIT: Fixed. Given that these illegal people by definition don't enjoy the things that the nation state supplies citizens with and presumably work their asses of in shitty jobs and live off the grid how makes this "charity" accusation sense? Those people aren't living off anybody else's labour, they can't.
Like the sole summary sentence on the wikipedia page says, "The economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States is challenging to measure and politically contentious.
|
On June 04 2016 03:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:56 Adreme wrote:On June 04 2016 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:46 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. Yet more people have been deported under Obama than ever were under Bush. The GOP is just keeping the issue alive because they know they have to compromise and its easier to say “secure the border first” over and over than address the problem. Because they know they can’t deport all 11 million illegal immigrants. Please, tell me more about how serious the Democrats and Obama are about stopping illegal immigration when they won't even call it by its name: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. What a fucking joke. Democrats have zero credibility on the issue (not that RINO's are much better). Maybe the point of friction is that ILLEGAL people are actually still human beings no matter what kind of label you assign to them? Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to go full Judge Dredd on someone just because you declare them to be non persons? We aren't a sovereign nation state. Not a fucking charity. I am almost positive if push came to shove we could find 90% of the illegal immigrants and deport them over the course of several months but such an action would also without question cause a massive recession. So doing it before congresses actually comes up with a way to get the people we need into this country in a much faster manner then we are forced to rely on the status quo to fill those jobs which while horrible is the best option that does not involve waiting on congress which is like waiting on a snail to finish a marathon. Of course we could deport them all. We've done it before (Operation Wetback).
We can do a lot of things. That doesn't make it a good idea, politically possible or even productive.
|
On June 04 2016 04:00 Godwrath wrote:
Didn't the NAFTA actually damage pretty hard the agriculture on Mexico and those farmers tend to migrate now to the USA looking for work ? (genuinely asking, because i am not sure).
The first one to speak out against NAFTA was Trump.
|
On June 04 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:58 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:56 Adreme wrote:On June 04 2016 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:46 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. Yet more people have been deported under Obama than ever were under Bush. The GOP is just keeping the issue alive because they know they have to compromise and its easier to say “secure the border first” over and over than address the problem. Because they know they can’t deport all 11 million illegal immigrants. Please, tell me more about how serious the Democrats and Obama are about stopping illegal immigration when they won't even call it by its name: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. What a fucking joke. Democrats have zero credibility on the issue (not that RINO's are much better). Maybe the point of friction is that ILLEGAL people are actually still human beings no matter what kind of label you assign to them? Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to go full Judge Dredd on someone just because you declare them to be non persons? We aren't a sovereign nation state. Not a fucking charity. I am almost positive if push came to shove we could find 90% of the illegal immigrants and deport them over the course of several months but such an action would also without question cause a massive recession. So doing it before congresses actually comes up with a way to get the people we need into this country in a much faster manner then we are forced to rely on the status quo to fill those jobs which while horrible is the best option that does not involve waiting on congress which is like waiting on a snail to finish a marathon. Of course we could deport them all. We've done it before (Operation Wetback). We can do a lot of things. That doesn't make it a good idea, politically possible or even productive.
Legalizing them would cost more than deportation & the wall combined.
The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education; therefore, the high use of welfare associated with less-educated legal immigrants indicates that legalization would likely increase welfare costs, particularly for cash and housing programs.
Restrictions on new legal immigrants’ access to welfare have not prevented them from accessing programs at high rates because restrictions often apply to only a modest share of immigrants at any one time, some programs are not restricted, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, and some provisions are entirely unenforced. Equally important, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
|
On June 04 2016 03:56 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:46 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. Yet more people have been deported under Obama than ever were under Bush. The GOP is just keeping the issue alive because they know they have to compromise and its easier to say “secure the border first” over and over than address the problem. Because they know they can’t deport all 11 million illegal immigrants. Please, tell me more about how serious the Democrats and Obama are about stopping illegal immigration when they won't even call it by its name: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. What a fucking joke. Democrats have zero credibility on the issue (not that RINO's are much better). Maybe the point of friction is that ILLEGAL people are actually still human beings no matter what kind of label you assign to them? Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to go full Judge Dredd on someone just because you declare them to be non persons? We aren't a sovereign nation state. Not a fucking charity. I am almost positive if push came to shove we could find 90% of the illegal immigrants and deport them over the course of several months but such an action would also without question cause a massive recession. So doing it before congresses actually comes up with a way to get the people we need into this country in a much faster manner then we are forced to rely on the status quo to fill those jobs which while horrible is the best option that does not involve waiting on congress which is like waiting on a snail to finish a marathon.
re: clearing out illegals
it's certainly possible; but to do so while respecting civil liberties might not be. Just like it's not so easy to find and arrest all the more typical criminals. It's also an awful lot of people to move.
|
Ever? I'm pretty sure someone beat him to the punch on that one.
|
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!
Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?
Objection, bias, your honor.
|
Overruled. Patriots before law breakers.
|
The original Patriots broke the law, so that rule does not apply.
|
On June 04 2016 04:06 SK.Testie wrote:
Overruled. Patriots before law breakers.
Excellent, now get that printed on a t-shirt and go stump for Trump already. You'd fit right in 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
