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 keep saying this: Why should we have a military if we cannot protect our own borders? Our Nation is under attack by many foreign nations and we do nothing. Why even have a government if they do not carry out their primary objective to protect and serve? What is happening now is a total failure of government's primary commitment.
Of course there will be studies by rich companies that point out the pitfalls - but most Americans are not rich companies!
When you use military to control bortders the old saw is you end up with lousy border guards and a worst military.
Practically the military role is too kill our enemies without getting killed. Preferably from as far away as possible.
The Border Guard is to turn back those who would cross the border other than at official stations and interdict the smuggling of property or people across the border. No death is involved or desired. The Border Guard also runs the process whereby people and goods are admitted into the US. As a secondary job it searches out and removes those who are in the country without proper permission and sees to their removal.
None of this requires high skill at killing the other side.
The language of the poll is known and accessible and has been the same for ten years or so. Over that period the support for a path to legality has slightly grown.
And even the poll cited really comes to about the same conclusion...only about a quarter of the US population supports full scale deportation.
And that is really the problem. To launch any large initiative in the US you need to get support for it up above two thirds and above 75% if you wish to modify the Constitution.
So this is the proverbial dead horse with full support only from a minority. The group may well be big enough if the question is asked properly to prevent any change of status. So the best the antis will be able to do is maintain the status quo which may well lead to further growth of the illegal population.
Amnesty, legalization, paths to citizenship would we what would lead to further growth of the illegal alien population. That was proven in 1986 with the first amnesty. Now we have at least quadruple the number of illegal aliens today. Every there is even a push for amnesty by our president or our politicians they come here in droves to get in it or in on the next one.
While I never suggested Forbes is conservative it is well right of center. As is the Wall Street Journal. I do not expect either will support Clinton or Sanders.
The Heritage Foundation study is of course an intellectual joke. One of the bigger items is the cost to educate US citizens. And the idiocy of charging off the cost of police and civic operation. This of course would require that the illegals not only leave...but that they not be replaced...So who builds the houses and cuts the grass? Only the true believer can actually support this idiotic work.
I will agree that if you actually believe that the Heritage work is factually we probably can't communicate. My dog is smart enough to understand how absurd the Heritage Foundation work is.
Who do you think built houses and did landscaping jobs at a fair wage before the arrival of millions of cheap, illegal laborers?
While I never suggested Forbes is conservative it is well right of center. As is the Wall Street Journal. I do not expect either will support Clinton or Sanders.
The Heritage Foundation study is of course an intellectual joke. One of the bigger items is the cost to educate US citizens. And the idiocy of charging off the cost of police and civic operation. This of course would require that the illegals not only leave...but that they not be replaced...So who builds the houses and cuts the grass? Only the true believer can actually support this idiotic work.
I will agree that if you actually believe that the Heritage work is factually we probably can't communicate. My dog is smart enough to understand how absurd the Heritage Foundation work is.
Houses are only built by illegals? Only illegals cut grass? I guess it depends upon where you live, but where I am from most of us cut our own grass. The landscapers hire locals not illegals. Then again we also clean our own houses.
When you use military to control bortders the old saw is you end up with lousy border guards and a worst military.
Practically the military role is too kill our enemies without getting killed. Preferably from as far away as possible.
The Border Guard is to turn back those who would cross the border other than at official stations and interdict the smuggling of property or people across the border. No death is involved or desired. The Border Guard also runs the process whereby people and goods are admitted into the US. As a secondary job it searches out and removes those who are in the country without proper permission and sees to their removal.
None of this requires high skill at killing the other side.
I understand that! But why have any military if we have open borders? That is up close and as personal as you will ever get. So much for stopping enemies half way around the globe; we simply let them walk right in!
All illegal immigrants should be deported and immigration law violations should be punished harshly without regard to race, religion, or national origin.
In other words: No special treatment for any one group.
ditto.
I see they did not do this in Europe, and now Europeans are getting murdered by illegal immigrants.-They are told that they are xenophobic and intolerant, although it is the immigrants who are actually being intolerant. The citizens are getting fed up because they are not being defended by their OWN leaders. It is insanity, of course.
our media doesn't cover any of it, interestingly enough, but we do have foreign newspapers and the internet to warn us.
just one story of one beautiful girl murdered, among many
When you use military to control bortders the old saw is you end up with lousy border guards and a worst military.
Practically the military role is too kill our enemies without getting killed. Preferably from as far away as possible.
The Border Guard is to turn back those who would cross the border other than at official stations and interdict the smuggling of property or people across the border. No death is involved or desired. The Border Guard also runs the process whereby people and goods are admitted into the US. As a secondary job it searches out and removes those who are in the country without proper permission and sees to their removal.
None of this requires high skill at killing the other side.
Actually, you don't understand OUR military and what the mission of the National Guard is, make that "was".
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962
Houses are only built by illegals? Only illegals cut grass? I guess it depends upon where you live, but where I am from most of us cut our own grass. The landscapers hire locals not illegals. Then again we also clean our own houses.
As we know, the companies that use illegals pay them less and we subsidize that company by having to provide for the illegals support for their children, emergency medical for the illegals of which they use 3 times more than a citizen, school for the illegal children which is breaking the bank and lessening the education for OUR children.
Black Americans used to work as hotel maids and dishwashers in my neck of the woods before all the illegals came and undercut their jobs. Democrats say they care about black America but now that Latinos have supplanted blacks as the dominant minority group (and some Latinos are black), they don't really care.
Look around you. Every first world country has been invaded by poor from a third world country.
You think that's all "by coincidence" ?
The "coincidence" is based on several things:
Independence for countries demonstrably not ready for self-rule;
Misery created by the "governments" of these newly-independent countries;
The information revolution which provides images of life in the West with the insinuation that generous governments will make that life available for free;
The availability of at least some free benefits; and
The refusal of the politically correct chattering class to make clear that these people will be very disappointed in what they find.
Back in the day, immigrants did learn of the Americas. The ads represented that the "streets were paved with gold." When they came they found they were more often at work paving those streets. But back then there was much less of a "redistribution" or "welfare" ethic than there is now. So most really understood they would have to learn a new language and work rather hard. Also, keeping in touch with their "home country" was either impossible or impossibly expensive.
Now relatively cheap travel and often free communication upends all of that. A few go. More follow. And anyone in the West that really wants to put a stop to it is branded an extremist, a nut, a right-winger, etc.
But how many of the type of people that are most vocal about illegal immigration would be willing to spend the billions needed to beef up the immigration courts so that the illegals could be speedily given their "due process" rights and deported? And judicial overload is not confined to immigration. Most state court systems are creaky and overloaded. It is easy to spout tough rhetoric on civil court backlogs, crime and immigration.
But most conservatives don't want to pay up for the needed court resources. I personally favor fully funding the courts so they can do their job, and get illegals out. But not many like that idea.
Why do you think you can speak for most conservatives? You have a link to your assertions? Conservatives know who many billions a year it is costing us to allow illegal aliens to remain here so removing them would be a bargain. As has been noted in here numerous times a good way to keep down the costs is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here many if not most would leave on their own. No costs involved.
Why do you think you can speak for most conservatives? You have a link to your assertions? Conservatives know who many billions a year it is costing us to allow illegal aliens to remain here so removing them would be a bargain. As has been noted in here numerous times a good way to keep down the costs is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here many if not most would leave on their own. No costs involved.
I didn't say I was a conservative.
What I am saying is that if you ask most conservatives if they would be willing to spend, say, 10 billion a year to beef up the immigration courts (and the amount may well be more) they'd look at you like you have horns.
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.
