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.
I agree with everything you have said but do you have to use the PC term of undocumented and plain ole immigrant to describe illegal aliens which is the actual lawful immigration term for those in our country illegally? It grates on my nerves because this is the kind of untruthful lingo that the pro-illegals use.
Well, I'm not too concerned by people who get too easily offended or irritated by use of terminology. Around here, we use terms referenced on the books in the courts and in filings. Not sure what country you're referring to, but in my country, America, the most common terminology on federal and Texas (my state) books and filings are:
1. Undocumented persons
2. Unlawful employment of aliens
Now "illegal immigrant" has made it on the books as well, but is much less common and is only in newer bills (passed or unpassed). Originally this term was not used.
Well, I'm not too concerned by people who get too easily offended or irritated by use of terminology. Around here, we use terms referenced on the books in the courts and in filings. Not sure what country you're referring to, but in my country, America, the most common terminology on federal and Texas (my state) books and filings are:
1. Undocumented persons
2. Unlawful employment of aliens
Now "illegal immigrant" has made it on the books as well, but is much less common and is only in newer bills (passed or unpassed). Originally this term was not used.
The correct term in our federal immigration law terminology for those in our country illegally is illegal aliens. No surprise that Texas that has a lot of Hispanics in it and many there illegally would use PC language to describe them. We all know it's used to try and white wash what they actually are as if they just left their papers at home accidently and became "undocumented".
Building the wall would be the opposite of sensible.
Really, so you know more than the Border Patrol and Homeland Security who say that the walls work and that they need them? I've even provided many links in the past denoting how that has been true. I'll tell you what's not sensible and that is continuing to pay the over $100 billion a year that illegals cost us.
Did you tell congress back in 2006 when the actual wall bill was passed that it wasn't sensible? Thought not!
Greywar, if e-verify was made mandatory with federal monetary support, what would be an appropriate response to any state that did not support e-verify of any state that would make the use of e-verify illegal.
You do realize Trump hired illegal immigrants to work for him. So have a lot of wealthy businesses people who don't want to pay real wages. If you get on Trump about this, illegal immigrants will stop coming. That would be more effective than putting up a wall no? Republicans, the party of big business, love the thought of open borders.
What I want to know is, is Trump going to continue to push against birthright citizenship, and push for blood citizenship?
No, he didn't! Rich business people do not hire manual laborers themselves and it's never been proven that he "knowingly" had any illegals working for him. Get back with us when he is convicted of that. Ever hear of the term "innocent until proven guilty"?
Not all illegals are coming here for work, thus the wall. Certainly criminals, drug runners and those from known terrorist countries aren't coming here for work, thus the wall.
If it's the Republicans who want open borders then why do Trump and many other Republicans want the wall? Guess what party is opposed to it though so you aren't making any sense. If you think it's only Republican businesses that hire illegals then you aren't dealing in reality either.
I hope Trump continues to go after birthright citizenship.
February 2017 -1,250-mile figure (Homeland Security figure)
April 2017 - "President Trump’s goal is to build 1,000 miles of wall, in addition to reinforcing the existing 654 miles of barriers along the border." Total length of the border spanned will be less due to the meandering Rio Grande River.
Yeah, I mean it would be horrible if we did something actually effective with that money like say.....funding mandatory everify. Something that would work.
But really this thread is mis-labeled, there is no deal yet, we're just hearing that they are talking, and even the talks arent going to fund the wall at any significant level. Its just going to be government waste.
While I agree that we should have E verify, there ARE ways around the system! Any solution to the issue requires a multi-pronged approach as no one program will resolve the issue.!
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.
Get back with us when he is convicted of that. Ever hear of the term "innocent until proven guilty"?