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.
Let's ask the Salvadorans who became US citizens legally what they think of this move.
Would there be much of a question as to how they answer?
The question might as well be, “Do you want some of your neighbors, friends and family deported and potentially a greater voting block reduced?” Im guessing the answer would be no.
We need to remove all illegals and drastically reduce all immigration to the US.
I've worked with a number of Salvadorans. They are incredibly industrious and productive people. Many of the 'temporary Salvadoran' are employed and working at jobs (paying taxes) that nobody else wants (cleaning toilets, offices, hotel rooms).
It is cruel and nasty to send back people who have become entrenched in our country with families, homes, jobs. If they are productive, they should be given a path to citizenship. If they are in prison, on welfare or otherwise a blight on society, send them back.
We would be better off deporting unemployed opioid and meth addicts than people who are actually contributing.
17-years hardly sounds "temporary," which is the objection of many. Either we have immigration laws or we don't. "Temporary" immigration allowances are only another way to circumvent the law.
Hundreds of euphemisms are used today to make things society otherwise objects to sound more acceptable (ie; dreamers, sanctuary cities, pregnancy termination, ethnic cleansing, special, adult entertainment, recreational drugs, extramarital, gay, liberal, progressive, etc. etc).
Let's ask the Salvadorans who became US citizens legally what they think of this move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Would there be much of a question as to how they answer?
The question might as well be, “Do you want some of your neighbors, friends and family deported and potentially a greater voting block reduced?” Im guessing the answer would be no.
We need to remove all illegals and drastically reduce all immigration to the US.
I have two friends, one from Colombia and one from Venezuela, whose families immigrated here legally. They both think illegals should be deported.
I've worked with a number of Salvadorans. They are incredibly industrious and productive people. Many of the 'temporary Salvadoran' are employed and working at jobs (paying taxes) that nobody else wants (cleaning toilets, offices, hotel rooms).
It is cruel and nasty to send back people who have become entrenched in our country with families, homes, jobs. If they are productive, they should be given a path to citizenship. If they are in prison, on welfare or otherwise a blight on society, send them back.
We would be better off deporting unemployed opioid and meth addicts than people who are actually contributing.
If I rent a home for 17 years, I have to accept that I still don’t own it.
They aren’t citizens, so they have no “right” to stay here and shouldn’t assume they do.
17-years hardly sounds "temporary," which is the objection of many. Either we have immigration laws or we don't. "Temporary" immigration allowances are only another way to circumvent the law.
Hundreds of euphemisms are used today to make things society otherwise objects to sound more acceptable (ie; dreamers, sanctuary cities, pregnancy termination, ethnic cleansing, special, adult entertainment, recreational drugs, extramarital, gay, liberal, progressive, etc. etc).
exactly.
and if, even after an incredibly over-generous 17 years of 'temporary' stay you decide they should go back to their home country, you'll be called 'cruel and nasty' by leftist apologists.
I've worked with a number of Salvadorans. They are incredibly industrious and productive people. Many of the 'temporary Salvadoran' are employed and working at jobs (paying taxes) that nobody else wants (cleaning toilets, offices, hotel rooms).
It is cruel and nasty to send back people who have become entrenched in our country with families, homes, jobs. If they are productive, they should be given a path to citizenship. If they are in prison, on welfare or otherwise a blight on society, send them back.
We would be better off deporting unemployed opioid and meth addicts than people who are actually contributing.
Very good and interesting point. Which would help the country more? Kicking out taxpaying immigrants or the opioid addicts in Appalachia and the Rust Belt? One is a net benefit, the other is a net cost.
200,000?! Ye Gads!......... Who has been running this country? Oh. Never mind.
Yes, you are correct, Bush imported them.
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.
