Illegal immies want BarryO to halt depos, sayin he is expelling people who would vote democrat

[rpfocus]

Most people come here looking for work. Why did net immigration stop in 2007? Jobs dried up. Whatever freebies there were didn't change. If they are lazy and want freebies, they probably aren't going be ambitious enough to make the effort of trying to get into the country illegally (though should probably add that about half of all people currently in the country illegally entered on a legal basis- student, work, or travel visas and over-stayed them).

If the government REFUSES to enforce the laws currently on the books, what good will "immigration reform" do? Neither Republican or Democratic leadership will ever answer why current laws are not being enforced, and both parties have turned a blind eye to this issues during their time in power. This is due to the fact that they both have something to gain from illegals continuing to stream in. Maybe after we get the 'first woman president' checked off, we can finally have our first 3rd party president (since the Whig party).

 

[Dianne]

Barry doesn't give a chit ... tooted out until morning ... think he and holder are on a wild sex binge tonight , with each other... cute couple... I don't deny their relationship at all ... I do deny their deception.

 

[Zippyjuan]

If the government REFUSES to enforce the laws currently on the books, what good will "immigration reform" do? Neither Republican or Democratic leadership will ever answer why current laws are not being enforced, and both parties have turned a blind eye to this issues during their time in power. This is due to the fact that they both have something to gain from illegals continuing to stream in. Maybe after we get the 'first woman president' checked off, we can finally have our first 3rd party president (since the Whig party).

Are they "streaming in"? (see my chart showing no increase in the number of illegal aliens in the country since 2007- there are actually fewer now than there were in that year).

 

[rpfocus]

Are they "streaming in"? (see my chart showing no increase in the number of illegal aliens in the country since 2007- there are actually fewer now than there were in that year).

Ok. My issue is that immigration law purposely has not been enforced by both Republicans and Democrats for 30+ years resulting in our current predicament.

-If immigration law were enforced, there would be no need for "immigration reform."
-If companies hiring illegal immigrants were properly penalized, there would be no need or "immigration reform."

Do you believe the 10+ million people in the country illegally should be allowed to stay? If not, do you really believe the US would ever forcefully remove 10 million illegal immigrants OR that 10 million illegal immigrants would ever voluntarily leave because of a 'lack of freebies'?

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Believe whatever you want. I'm guessing you haven't looked into it at all.

1. White House changes story on Obama's uncle - USA Today
   USA Today
   Dec 5, 2013 - A year after saying President Obama had not an uncle who faced deportation, the White House said Thursday that Obama lived briefly with the ...
2. Obama's uncle wins immigration battle, gets OK to stay in U.S. ...
   www.cnn.com/2013/12/03/politics/obama-uncle-immigration/
   Dec 6, 2013 - President Obama's uncle, who has been living and working in the United States illegally for decades, has gotten a federal judge's OK to stay in ...

So much news these days.

 

[rpfocus]

So much news these days.

And Mitt Romney hired illegals. So once again, both parties are responsible for not enforcing the immigration laws. Which is why I say screw Elephants AND Donkeys.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Ok. My issue is that immigration law purposely has not been enforced by both Republicans and Democrats for 30+ years resulting in our current predicament.

-If immigration law were enforced, there would be no need for "immigration reform."
-If companies hiring illegal immigrants were properly penalized, there would be no need or "immigration reform."

Do you believe the 10+ million people in the country illegally should be allowed to stay? If not, do you really believe the US would ever forcefully remove 10 million illegal immigrants OR that 10 million illegal immigrants would ever voluntarily leave because of a 'lack of freebies'?

We have built fences and other "defenses" along thousands of miles of our southern border. We spend more than twice as much today as we did even when Obama took office on border security and have twice as many people working on it. Record deportations. What more would you suggest? How would you deal with the ten million? How should "immigration law be enforced" in your opinon which "hasn't been done in the last 30 years"?

Stopping people on streets to check IDs to see who is here legally and illegally and deporting anybody without proper papers (maybe a national ID to be sure who are "them" and who are "us"? Raid businesses to see if they are hiring illegals? Should businesses be expected to act as government immigration agents and be checking out everybody who applies for a job? How would you react to those measures if you were stopped by INS or cops on the streets and asked for ID? How would you react as a business told you must verify the nationality and legal status of all employess you want to hire? How would you react if you were required to prove citizenship everytime you applied for anything- school, a job, a car loan or to rent an apartment or buy a home or open a bank account?

How much freedom are you willing to give up to deal with the ten million already in the US?

Papers please!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Stopping people on streets to check IDs to see who is here legally and illegally and deporting anybody without proper papers (maybe a national ID to be sure who are "them" and who are "us"?

No, never. I don't like your suggestion.

Raid businesses to see if they are hiring illegals?

Only if there is probable cause, and never with a SWAT team of any kind. More like a food inspection. "Raid" is a term that should not be used.

Should businesses be expected to act as government immigration agents and be checking out everybody who applies for a job?

Businesses already check out potential employees in many ways. Most require multiple forms of ID and a Social Security card. Some require birth certificates or Passports.

 

[erowe1]

The article says this:

Senator Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the chamber, wrote in November that he was troubled that the administration deported 200,000 parents of U.S. citizens in 2012 and others who “only committed minor, nonviolent infractions, such as traffic offenses.”

Is what Durbin says true?

If so, then we here should be standing up for these peoples' rights. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any right to deport them.

 

[Acala]

As several wise people on this thread have indicated, the answer is to turn off the giveaways. For everyone. From TBTF banks down to the poor folks straggling across the border. Then it won't matter and we can stop all the dangerous talk about government checking papers and checkpoints and such.

 

[Philhelm]

Stopping people on streets to check IDs to see who is here legally and illegally and deporting anybody without proper papers (maybe a national ID to be sure who are "them" and who are "us"? Raid businesses to see if they are hiring illegals? Should businesses be expected to act as government immigration agents and be checking out everybody who applies for a job? How would you react to those measures if you were stopped by INS or cops on the streets and asked for ID? How would you react as a business told you must verify the nationality and legal status of all employess you want to hire? How would you react if you were required to prove citizenship everytime you applied for anything- school, a job, a car loan or to rent an apartment or buy a home or open a bank account?

I'm white. They wouldn't dare ask for such things.

 

[rpfocus]

Question Question Question but no response

Don't think I didn't notice that in your response to me, you 'neglected' to answer the questions I posed to you, and instead simply posed what are essentially the same questions back to me. Deflection 101. I'll answer when you do.

 

[erowe1]

If the government REFUSES to enforce the laws currently on the books, what good will "immigration reform" do? Neither Republican or Democratic leadership will ever answer why current laws are not being enforced, and both parties have turned a blind eye to this issues during their time in power. This is due to the fact that they both have something to gain from illegals continuing to stream in. Maybe after we get the 'first woman president' checked off, we can finally have our first 3rd party president (since the Whig party).

The current laws on the books are unconstitutional and unjust. So they shouldn't be enforced and are actually no laws at all.

 

[rpfocus]

The current laws on the books are unconstitutional and unjust. So they shouldn't be enforced and are actually no laws at all.

They're not unconstitutional until they're ruled unconstitutional. What laws are you claiming are unconstitutional by the way? And you believe the US has the right to deport someone in the country illegally?

 

[erowe1]

They're not unconstitutional until they're ruled unconstitutional.

By whom? Some judge? You really believe that?

What laws are you claiming are unconstitutional by the way?

For starters, any law that tells employers who they can and cannot hire and property owners who they can and cannot rent their property out to. When anti-illegal immigration people talk about enforcing the laws already on the books, it's generally these laws that they mean.

And [do] you believe the US [federal government] has the right to deport someone in the country illegally?

What does "in the country illegally" even mean? Is there such a thing as being in the country illegally? Do we have laws that actually say that someone's mere presence somewhere between the borders of the USA is illegal?

I doubt that we do. But if we do, then clearly those laws are unjust and unconstitutional.

No the US federal government does not have the right to declare that it is illegal for someone simply to exist within the borders of the USA and then deport them.

 

[rpfocus]

By whom? Some judge? You really believe that?

Well I don't believe that just saying a law is unconstitutional is enough. I do believe that there needs to be a generally accepted means of determining which laws are constitutional and which aren't. So yes, I accept that the Supreme Court fills that purpose.

 

[rpfocus]

Is there such a thing as being in the country illegally?

Yeah, it's kind of hard to continue this with such fundamental differences in the meaning of the words legal and illegal as a starting point. I'll bow out by just stating that I do believe in the concepts of country borders and citizenship.

 

[Michelangelo]

Well I don't believe that just saying a law is unconstitutional is enough. I do believe that there needs to be a generally accepted means of determining which laws are constitutional and which aren't. So yes, I accept that the Supreme Court fills that purpose.

Funnily enough the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to claim a given law is constitutional or not. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction over certain federal crimes (e.g. treason) and state v. state cases, but mentions nothing close to what we understand as judicial review.

 

[LibertyEagle]

immies? is that a new word?

I like crimmigrants better.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What does "in the country illegally" even mean? Is there such a thing as being in the country illegally? Do we have laws that actually say that someone's mere presence somewhere between the borders of the USA is illegal?

I doubt that we do. But if we do, then clearly those laws are unjust and unconstitutional.

No the US federal government does not have the right to declare that it is illegal for someone simply to exist within the borders of the USA and then deport them.

It seems like this would cover it, wouldn't it?

Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.