Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=All American NYC;19384040]Local police already enforce federal drug laws.
They should be able to enforce Federal immigration laws.
Why you don't want illegals deported?[/quote]
Quote:
They should be able to enforce Federal immigration laws.
Do you think Its me saying that local police are not able to enforce federal immigration law? Actually LEO are able to enforce Federal imigration law if the partner with DHS/ICE under the 287(g) program. LE agencies just cant do it on their own...without federal training and oversight. That is the federal government saying that, not me.
Dont personalize this.
Last edited by 1751texan; 05-31-2011 at 04:26 PM..
Sure. We can handle deporting 400,000 or so illegals. That is roughly enough to maintain a population of illegals that is below 250,000. If we reduce the illegals to about 250,000 and keep the pressure up we can hold it there. We might even have to increase the enforcement by 50 or 100%. But we could, if we chose, use that resource to actually hold the number of illegals at some low level.
We may not do that of course. But we could. We have no rational way to deal with ten million.
What is your fixation with deportation? For the umpteenth time. . . . mass deportation will not be necessary if we strictly enforce our current laws, deny ALL benefits and services, and eliminate their ability to work.
Ten million illegals? You must be referring to California alone. You certainly can’t mean the entire country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
That is simply the anti dream. They need little if anything. They don't have to work for the unscruplous...mostly for relatives and friends.
Any employer that would knowingly hire illegal aliens is indeed unscrupulous. And, your notion that they will be employed by family and friends is simply a pipe dream. Even if it were possible, which it most assuredly is not, they would still need government assistance to survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
So an even better way to move out the illegals is a lousey economy. That of course has its own costs.
Our economy in is the tank, yet illegals enter our country daily. Haven’t you heard? The U.S. is a free-for-all. Illegals don’t have to worry about a job. All they have to do is give birth, and . . . . . voila!
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
And I would think the illegals respond just as the Las Vegas construction worker. YOu go where there is work and harrassment is low. But at this point that is not going to cause a big exodus to Mexico. Probably more a move to the Dakotas.
Where will they go when they can’t get a job, and are unwelcome everywhere in this country, even the Dakotas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
The mistake in 1988 was not the amnesty. That made pretty good sense. It was that the follow on to stop any further inmigration did not occur.
We were fooled once into believing amnesty would solve our problem. We would have to be morons to believe it again. It would be Amnesty Debacle II. Only, this time, the results would be far more devastating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
You continue to beat your dead horse...and I will continue to point it out. You guys prevent amnesty. The other half of the population prevents deportation. The result is the worst case.
Be proud.
You are truly delusional if you actually believe that half of the citizens of this country support amnesty. In fact, amnesty is one of the few issues with bipartisan opposition.
You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask again. If it is too expensive to enforce our current immigration laws, how will we suddenly have the resources to enforce “new” laws proposed by CIR? Illegal immigration is already bankrupting this country without illegals being eligible for many benefits. Imagine the astronomical costs if we legalized their status.
Moreover, who will pay for criminal background checks on 12-30 million illegals -- many, with several aliases? Who will pay for the medical exams, tax investigations, etc? And, please don’t say illegal aliens will pay, because we know darn well they won’t. Furthermore, if our government can’t even monitor current visa programs, how on earth will there be adequate oversight to ensure the amnestied illegals remain compliant?
You are entitled to believe that we must throw in the towel, and allow illegal aliens to subjugate this country (your dream). And, I am entitled to believe otherwise. Ultimately, we will see whose horse is dead.
What is your fixation with deportation? For the umpteenth time. . . . mass deportation will not be necessary if we strictly enforce our current laws, deny ALL benefits and services, and eliminate their ability to work.
Ten million illegals? You must be referring to California alone. You certainly can’t mean the entire country.
Any employer that would knowingly hire illegal aliens is indeed unscrupulous. And, your notion that they will be employed by family and friends is simply a pipe dream. Even if it were possible, which it most assuredly is not, they would still need government assistance to survive.
Our economy in is the tank, yet illegals enter our country daily. Haven’t you heard? The U.S. is a free-for-all. Illegals don’t have to worry about a job. All they have to do is give birth, and . . . . . voila!
Where will they go when they can’t get a job, and are unwelcome everywhere in this country, even the Dakotas?
We were fooled once into believing amnesty would solve our problem. We would have to be morons to believe it again. It would be Amnesty Debacle II. Only, this time, the results would be far more devastating.
You are truly delusional if you actually believe that half of the citizens of this country support amnesty. In fact, amnesty is one of the few issues with bipartisan opposition.
You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask again. If it is too expensive to enforce our current immigration laws, how will we suddenly have the resources to enforce “new” laws proposed by CIR? Illegal immigration is already bankrupting this country without illegals being eligible for many benefits. Imagine the astronomical costs if we legalized their status.
Moreover, who will pay for criminal background checks on 12-30 million illegals -- many, with several aliases? Who will pay for the medical exams, tax investigations, etc? And, please don’t say illegal aliens will pay, because we know darn well they won’t. Furthermore, if our government can’t even monitor current visa programs, how on earth will there be adequate oversight to ensure the amnestied illegals remain compliant?
You are entitled to believe that we must throw in the towel, and allow illegal aliens to subjugate this country (your dream). And, I am entitled to believe otherwise. Ultimately, we will see whose horse is dead.
When was the last time we've seen an article on illegal immigration that wasn't almost entirely against illegal immigration in the comments? A large poll of people?
When was the last time we've seen an article on illegal immigration that wasn't almost entirely against illegal immigration in the comments? A large poll of people?
you have a understanding that laws are given or granted, there is another way to change law, when a majority of American want change, they recind or amend a law.
"There are SO many other things that I believe the majority wants".
These are your words...dont run form them now!
If a majority of Americans dont find this a problem, then America has spoken.
No dog in this hunt but I believe you're being diliberately obtuse. The poster is merely implying that "regardless of what an overwhelming majority of American citizens wish for or feel prudent; legislaters are governed by other concerns such as lobby groups or constituents that perhaps rely on illegal labour to maximize shareholder profits. He is saying as a comparator that he will be able to fly to the moon and sing like Aretha before legislaters will take their heads out of their butts and deal with the issue of illegal immigration.
My sincere apologies to the poster "Bandon" if I have overstepped the boundaries in attempting to quell this obfuscation nonsense from 1751texan. Your point was perfectly clear to myself and I suspect anyone else without an 'agenda'.
that is not the topic...local law enforcement officers are not on the border enforcing immigration laws. Those persons are called Border Patrol agents and are Federal agents.
the question is not whether BP has he right to check incomming person's immigration status...it is whether that should be a function of local police officers.
Law Enforcement, get it? They enforce our laws. For some unknown reason you are under the false impression that ONLY the Border Patrol has the right to question non-citizens, or the right to arrest, prosecute, or incarcerate illegal aliens. Yes, the Border Patrol is assigned to our borders. But, our police officers have sworn to uphold ALL of our laws, including those pertaining to foreign nationals, both legal and illegal.
Do you think once illegals reach the interior of our country they are off-limits? Sorry, but immigration laws are enforceable in EVERY jurisdiction in this country.
DEA is our Federal Drug Enforcement agency, and they employ Federal Agents. Do you think only DEA has the legal right to question or arrest suspected drug dealers? If local police are on patrol and witness an illegal drug transaction, do you think they just shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh well, there is nothing we can do, because we aren’t federal agents.” No, they have every right to investigate. Likewise, local law enforcement officers do not have to become “immigration agents” to uphold immigration laws. That is simply the tired mantra of pro-illegals.
No dog in this hunt but I believe you're being diliberately obtuse. The poster is merely implying that "regardless of what an overwhelming majority of American citizens wish for or feel prudent; legislaters are governed by other concerns such as lobby groups or constituents that perhaps rely on illegal labour to maximize shareholder profits. He is saying as a comparator that he will be able to fly to the moon and sing like Aretha before legislaters will take their heads out of their butts and deal with the issue of illegal immigration.
My sincere apologies to the poster "Bandon" if I have overstepped the boundaries in attempting to quell this obfuscation nonsense from 1751texan. Your point was perfectly clear to myself and I suspect anyone else without an 'agenda'.
It was clear to me also what "Bandon's" post was about.
No dog in this hunt but I believe you're being diliberately obtuse. The poster is merely implying that "regardless of what an overwhelming majority of American citizens wish for or feel prudent; legislaters are governed by other concerns such as lobby groups or constituents that perhaps rely on illegal labour to maximize shareholder profits. He is saying as a comparator that he will be able to fly to the moon and sing like Aretha before legislaters will take their heads out of their butts and deal with the issue of illegal immigration.
My sincere apologies to the poster "Bandon" if I have overstepped the boundaries in attempting to quell this obfuscation nonsense from 1751texan. Your point was perfectly clear to myself and I suspect anyone else without an 'agenda'.
Amen!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
