U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2015, 07:55 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,137,944 times
Reputation: 5398

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
Yet monies were funded by congress in the billions to fight useless wars. There is a lot of waste in government spending all over the spectrum. We are spending billions on illegal aliens year after year but we don't have the monies to deport them? It's not a matter of not having the monies or the right to enforce our immigration laws it's a lack of will by the powers that be. I think you're right Obama would do what he is doing no matter what. Funny how in past administrations illegal aliens were deported. Did they not have the money nor the right to do so? I laugh at the lame arguments in here for not enforcing our immigration laws. These pro-illegals use every excuse in the book. Why have immigration laws if no one in our government has the right to enforce them no matter what they claim the reason for it is.
Actually it would have been cheap in 1988...but there was no will to do it.

Now it is virtually undoable even if we wanted to do it...and we still don't want to.

The only things the antis are able to do is protect the status quo which is the worst outcome.

 
Old 02-10-2015, 06:46 AM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,282,218 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Actually it would have been cheap in 1988...but there was no will to do it.

Now it is virtually undoable even if we wanted to do it...and we still don't want to.

The only things the antis are able to do is protect the status quo which is the worst outcome.
It's time to prove that you're right. More and more countries in Europe and even LatAm are starting to play rough with illegal aliens, so can the US.
 
Old 02-10-2015, 07:03 AM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,367 posts, read 8,269,291 times
Reputation: 5901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
Just remember the US had shut down most legal immigration back in the day and, WILL come down HARD on illegal aliens real soon. Things go in cycles.
And what "day" was that, pray tell…?!!


Every President Since Eisenhower Used Executive Authority On Immigration

Impeachable? Here Are 18 Immigration Executive Orders Issued by Recent Republican Presidents


All images from Creative Commons
 
Old 02-10-2015, 07:22 AM
 
31,480 posts, read 14,565,596 times
Reputation: 8351
The status quo is better than giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens once again while we have millions of unemployed Americans. Amnesty will just encourage more to come trying to get in on the next amnesty. When does it end?

All we need to do is implement e-verify in every workplace, deny benefits to them and birthright citizenship for their kids. Most would leave on their own and it would discourage more to come. It's really that simple.
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:13 AM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,137,944 times
Reputation: 5398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
The status quo is better than giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens once again while we have millions of unemployed Americans. Amnesty will just encourage more to come trying to get in on the next amnesty. When does it end?

All we need to do is implement e-verify in every workplace, deny benefits to them and birthright citizenship for their kids. Most would leave on their own and it would discourage more to come. It's really that simple.
Yes it is that simple. All you need is a set of quite impossible actions including a Constitutional amendment, Reality is a problem that cannot be evaded by ignoring it.
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:28 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,946 posts, read 7,976,337 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
I don't think you understand what I am saying. The bolded part is the crux of the issue. At the federal level President Obama and under him attorney general Holder, and secretary Jeh Johnson ARE the chief law enforcement officers for the federal government as far as immigration. The Constitution has a separation of powers at the federal level between the 3 branches of government and the executive branch is the enforcement branch and like all executive related offices they have discretion in which crimes they target and whom they choose to prosecute. The courts have no say in this because they are the courts and their job is to handle the process post charging and arrest.

In essence at the federal level President Obama is the head of federal law enforcement. While you might not like it, that is not a constitutional problem that is a political issue.

Now you could argue that state governments can start doing their own immigration policy and enforcement and you would be wrong because of something called federal preemption which is a supremacy clause issue.

Its all perfectly Constitutional.
Be s kind as to show where in the constitution this is listed. It was added on to bolster political power and to my knowledge has never been contest in court. So you really do not know if it is "perfectly Constitutional". That is just one more of your wishes.
 
Old 02-10-2015, 09:13 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,163,811 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
Be s kind as to show where in the constitution this is listed. It was added on to bolster political power and to my knowledge has never been contest in court. So you really do not know if it is "perfectly Constitutional". That is just one more of your wishes.
That would be article six clause 2.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Where the federal government has valid law making power states cannot make contradictory laws as those contradictory laws are considered preempted by federal law.

Now if you have doubts about immigration being a valid subject of federal law making I would refer you to Art 1 sec. 8 where it says congress has power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

It has also been litigated in court time and time again.. Specifically in terms of immigration it was just litigated in the case of Arizona v. US (2012)

Last edited by Egbert; 02-10-2015 at 09:22 PM..
 
Old 02-11-2015, 07:12 AM
 
31,480 posts, read 14,565,596 times
Reputation: 8351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
That would be article six clause 2.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Where the federal government has valid law making power states cannot make contradictory laws as those contradictory laws are considered preempted by federal law.

Now if you have doubts about immigration being a valid subject of federal law making I would refer you to Art 1 sec. 8 where it says congress has power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

It has also been litigated in court time and time again.. Specifically in terms of immigration it was just litigated in the case of Arizona v. US (2012)
The Arizona laws SB1070 mirrored federal law. So the state didn't pre-empt federal laws.
 
Old 02-11-2015, 08:34 AM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,163,811 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
The Arizona laws SB1070 mirrored federal law. So the state didn't pre-empt federal laws.
The Supreme court disagreed.
 
Old 02-11-2015, 10:16 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,946 posts, read 7,976,337 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
The Arizona laws SB1070 mirrored federal law. So the state didn't pre-empt federal laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
The Supreme court disagreed.
As it was instructed to do by this administration. IMO.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top