So Which Presidential Candidate Will Enforce Illegal Immigration Laws? (visas, Mexico, suspect)

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

Straight from the horses mouth!

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Nelson Peacock, responding to request from several U.S. Senators, including Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), wrote: “Our conservative estimate suggests that ICE would require a budget of more than $135 billion to apprehend, detain and remove the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”

So, while it would cost a one-time fee of about $135 billion to deport every single illegal alien in the country, it is actually a bargain considering the fact that it already costs us $113 billion annually to keep them here.

In other words, the mass deportation would pay for itself in a little over a year.

That is just one big spin. You stole the entire post from some right-wing article out there. Yes, I saw that article too.

The first part of the quote is indeed from Homeland Security. But... here is the thing, they NEVER said it would be cheaper than the alternative. Never. Nada. None. They never said that. End of story.

The later part is purely added by right-wing writers and the numbers are never justified.
.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by AKA Bubbleup

I'd like know how you would feel if Obama issued an executive order to cease all prosecutions and issue an amnesty order on all hate crimes.

'Ya know these hate crimes are pervasive in our society. These folks who actively engage in them are already here and are, in all other respects, productive citizens with families. We certainly do not want to tear at the seams of their family structure. That's not what America is about....

That said, these "dreamers" will be allowed to maintain their status as free Americans through my amnesty program and we will learn to accept their contributions as the lifeblood of American culture and prosperity.'

You claimed to have reviewed some of my posts, are you sure you didn't mix up mine with someone else? Don't want to tear at the family structure, not what America is about.... I never said that. I actually was quite open that I don't really give a rat what you do to the illegals, as long as it's practical. I honestly don't care about family structure, where do you even get that idea? Strange.

For that matter, when did I say I want to ease all deportation?!! If some unlucky slob got caught, have at it, deport him/her. Even though said slob will turn around and come back the next day, so be it. Just like with hate crime - if the authorities happen to catch someone committing it, well throw the book at him/her. I have no problem with that; but I don't want the law to over indulge on hate crime. I was very explicit that I have a problem with mass deportation or self deportation. Not because I don't like it, but because this is a fantasy that will never ever work. Hey I like to believe in the Fountain of Youth too, but I know you could never ever find it no matter how hard you look.

Using your analogy, you guys' idea is to devote massive amount of money, time, and manpower to catch EVERYONE who committed a hate crime past and present. And you also firmly believe that if some obscure law is implemented then ALL hate crimers will magically self-imprisoned.

Originally Posted by AKA Bubbleup

The reason the one solution isn't working is that a vast majority of undocumented immigrants (that are in fact in clear violation of Federal law) are processed (at the behest of standing administration's order) in a revolving door fashion.

And your response is to post a video about executive action on immigration.

So all of these border agents paid, protected and pensioned with current and future borrowed taxpayer dollars are instructed not to prosecute and not to deport those in clear violation of federal law. WHOSE'S WASTING THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY HERE? (hint: The people responsible for issuing this directive. In other words, our current administration)

Under the border control's current directive (against their wishes, in clear violation of their outlined SOP's and sworn duties) they are producing zero economic benefit by processing illegals only to let them go. It's one big 100% money suck in the current iteration.

If ICE were able to perform their duties effectively, we could at least leverage some economic and societal benefits from having that many more effective deportations lessen the burden of provision to carry these outlaws, be it temporarily or permanently.

If your point is that the current system sucks, you're not going to get a disagreement from me.

Originally Posted by AKA Bubbleup

On a side note, I've reviewed some of your retorts on this thread I'm finding myself somewhat relieved. If you were actually capable of cobbling together 'your narrative' into a construct that appeared to be even remotely believable?/ an adoptive solution that a majority of people would consider 'the correct path'? I would be genuinely terrified for my county's future.

The only thing that leaves me a little unsettled is that the formative basis for your narrative is one which a college education may have played a significant part.

That said, I will yield to your knowledge and experience on this one point: Is this where I'm supposed to put the "LOL" or should I have followed your lead and put it at the top?

You're right. I have not presented one single adoptive solution... that's because I haven't and have no interest to. But having no idea is often better than having several very bad ideas.

.

[AKA Bubbleup]

Originally Posted by beb0p

You claimed to have reviewed some of my posts,.

YES

Originally Posted by beb0p

are you sure you didn't mix up mine with someone else?.

No

Originally Posted by beb0p

Don't want to tear at the family structure, not what America is about.... I never said that. I actually was quite open that I don't really give a rat what you do to the illegals, as long as it's practical. I honestly don't care about family structure, where do you even get that idea? Strange. .

Not that it's worth the trouble but if you go back and read my post I think it would be clear that I was paraphrasing the highlights of Obama EO amnesty order (but swapping amnesty with hate crimes - to make the point that law breaking should not be circumvented, ever). I'm sorry if that got past you. My expectations of your comprehension were obviously too high.

Originally Posted by beb0p

For that matter, when did I say I want to ease all deportation?!! .

Well... when you linked BO's EO fanfare video as a sole, direct response to my call to leverage available resources to capture and prosecute illegals, I thought you were agreeing with BO's intentional directive to abandon his sworn duties and not to follow the law. Perhaps a poor inference on my part.

Originally Posted by beb0p

If some unlucky slob got caught, have at it, deport him/her. .

We agree on something.

Originally Posted by beb0p

Even though said slob will turn around and come back the next day, so be it..

Not if there's effective border patrol in place.

Originally Posted by beb0p

Just like with hate crime - if the authorities happen to catch someone committing it, well throw the book at him/her. .

Okay, as long as justice is applied equally and fairly, fine. So why not do the same with illegal immigrants? That EO fanfare video outlines a directive to do the complete opposite.

Originally Posted by beb0p

Using your analogy, you guys' idea is to devote massive amount of money, time, and manpower to catch EVERYONE who committed a hate crime past and present. And you also firmly believe that if some obscure law is implemented then ALL hate crimers will magically self-imprisoned. .

So now you're saying it's an analogy (which was as I had intended) when earlier you were implying I was putting words in you mouth. (and now you're putting words in mine).

Your two different responses to the same topic are both disjointed and misleading. Just as some might encourage me to 'check my privilege' now and again, i'd suggest you 'check your comprehension and response coherence'.

If (not all) but as many hate crimers are prosecuted equally and fairly that allocated resources can handle, some will be made an example of. If applied equally, all creeds and colors would be cognizant of the consequences of engaging in said criminal activity. While it's unlikely that they'd self-imprison (that's not my intention) with deterrence in place, those that haven't yet committed a the crime might refrain from committing in the first place.

The thing with illegal immigrants is that the very nature of their being in this country is a violation of federal law and every breath they take, every job they take, every 'now serving' ticket at the ER they take, every wife and child assaulted, DWI homocide, gang related murder, stolen car, every outstanding warrant, every court appearance, every incarceration and every state and federally funded public school student THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE are a contributing detriment to our society and fiscal solvency.

It's obvious that not all illegal immigrants do these things just as not all American citizen do these things.

The point is that the current administration is tolerant of all of these detriments, enough so that it is their intention to circumvent rather that follow the law.

[LS Jaun]

I'm sure there is a practical compromise but I'm not sure any politician will take that on. I would like to see whoever wins to take an extremely hard line on those committing felonies, gang members and coyotes 'Deport immediately after serving sentence', would be a good start.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by terperoni

I mean enforce the border and deport illegals. They will get my vote.

Probably none of them 100%. The problem just goes deeper than meets the eye of most of us. I think any Republican that wins will try and enforce the border, but deport illegals, that might be a different story. It just can not be done. Yes, we can get rid of the bad ones, or try and we should, but there are those who have just been here too long and the roots are here. There is no way to send them back, not to mention the cost. What needs to be done is crack down on any illegal getting any government assistance. That would help solve the problems. You wouldn't see them wanting to come here if they knew there had no advantage.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by LS Jaun

I'm sure there is a practical compromise but I'm not sure any politician will take that on. I would like to see whoever wins to take an extremely hard line on those committing felonies, gang members and coyotes 'Deport immediately after serving sentence', would be a good start.

What do you consider to be a practical compromise? Why should we compromise on the enforcement of our immigration laws anyway? A practical solution would be to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and to continue to come here. Sorry, no compromise.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by nmnita

Probably none of them 100%. The problem just goes deeper than meets the eye of most of us. I think any Republican that wins will try and enforce the border, but deport illegals, that might be a different story. It just can not be done. Yes, we can get rid of the bad ones, or try and we should, but there are those who have just been here too long and the roots are here. There is no way to send them back, not to mention the cost. What needs to be done is crack down on any illegal getting any government assistance. That would help solve the problems. You wouldn't see them wanting to come here if they knew there had no advantage.

See my post above. If they have no means to support themselves why would they remain here? Self-deportations don't cost a dime.

[pvande55]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

I am a HUGE advocate of e- Verfy.

Employment is the root cause of illegal immigration. No fence is high enough nore troops deep enough to deter the masses who seek and find employment.

Any state could mandate e- Verify for all workers, yet only 4 have done so.

Every current and former governor who aspires to the White House had opportunity to use their muscle to make eVerify the law on their state, yet not a single one did. Why is this?

We could pursue an amendment to the Constitiution to eliminate the rights of anchor babies going forward. It would not be possible to make this retroactive.

We could eliminate Medicaid prenatal and birth coverage for everyone ( currently almost 50% of all live births) to encourage responsible procreation.

Having said all this I do admire people who risk their lives to enter the U.S. illegally and do so seeking employment, not just handouts. Seems to me most work harder and longer for less money and no benefits. I would be willing to trade 5 million hard working illegals for 5 million good ole US Lazy Boys.

That is the answer. Don't build a bigger fence, turn off the magnet. While they are at it, start enforcing the law against hiring illegals. But allow temporary work permits for farm laborers, just make the employers pay decent wages.

[LS Jaun]

Originally Posted by pvande55

That is the answer. Don't build a bigger fence, turn off the magnet. While they are at it, start enforcing the law against hiring illegals. But allow temporary work permits for farm laborers, just make the employers pay decent wages.

Fences and walls are worthless, as the French found out in WW2. Maybe close to town but not in the midddle of nowhere, where they will dig and climb over them. Drones, motion detectors, fast moving vehicles at regular intervals is what is needed. Fences provide a false sense of security.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by LS Jaun

Fences and walls are worthless, as the French found out in WW2. Maybe close to town but not in the midddle of nowhere, where they will dig and climb over them. Drones, motion detectors, fast moving vehicles at regular intervals is what is needed. Fences provide a false sense of security.

I disagree. The double layered wall built on several miles of our San Diego border cut illegal immigration back to a trickle there. It helps our Border Patrol do their jobs more effectively also. It was to be built on the most porous parts of our border and that way the Border Patrol could focus more on the rest. It was approved but never funded by congress. Also there are tunnel sensors.