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.
How do you think we have 320 million people now to begin with? We've added over 60 million people just from immigration since the late 1960s, and many are non-interchangeable and non-compatible and Democrat voters. The rate was increase in 1990. We will have 400 million before you know what happened.
Leftist are devious.
I want less population growth and I want America's demographics to start returning toward the historic demographics. It's Americans' country, heritage and birthright and always will be.
We all want that...but how?? The solution is make it illegal to employ illegals. And yes, leftists are most definitely devious....ever notice the 'rat' in Democrat?
As others have stated, we already have restrictions on immigration. We should keep them and have an amendment to make citizenship based on the citizenship of at least one parent. That would reduce the amount of illegal immigrants having their families "broken up" with deportation since you can send back all of them since they aren't citizens.
OK I read it. I see no cite of any CA law that would require compliance. Actually I don't see any Federal law that requires compliance. I see no offer of payment for the expense and I see no claim of probable cause for a crime. Basically a plea to do the less than legal because ICE wants you to.
I never claimed it required them to follow it. I'm sure there are many times one government official or department doesn't cooperate with another, but I don't see why this should be considered acceptable when it is common sense.
BTW, who is reimbursing these departments when they arrest a criminal? If cost is more important than law enforcement, why arrest any criminal?
As others have stated, we already have restrictions on immigration. We should keep them and have an amendment to make citizenship based on the citizenship of at least one parent. That would reduce the amount of illegal immigrants having their families "broken up" with deportation since you can send back all of them since they aren't citizens.
If you're not even going to further restrict and balance legal mass immigration than what's the point? I'd rather have the illegals than much of the ***** we allow in even legally. Just let latin America have the US.
As others have stated, we already have restrictions on immigration. We should keep them and have an amendment to make citizenship based on the citizenship of at least one parent. That would reduce the amount of illegal immigrants having their families "broken up" with deportation since you can send back all of them since they aren't citizens.
How are families being torn apart? Which countries are not allowing their citizens to return with their children?
This reminds me of the article in which the author asserted that trump had no idea what the president does. I guess he isn't the only one who is missing key information.
Here is the process, straight from the Federal Government:
"Regarding some of the immmigrant visa categories, United States law limits the number of visas available each year, with certain limits by country."
True...but it's not enforced. Illegals just walk in and are hired. I know a Mexican who simply pays a small private Plane owner $250 to fly him across the border to a small Airport... He flies back and forth all the time...easy pesy
You may have missed some of my suggestions, mandatory e-verify, amend/repeal the 1965 onward immigration policies, end birthright citizenship, build a wall, enforce immigration laws etc.
All you want is laws that won't pass and Constitutional amendments that have no support.
Don't hold your breath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewsrgr8
We all want that...but how?? The solution is make it illegal to employ illegals. And yes, leftists are most definitely devious....ever notice the 'rat' in Democrat?
Actually it is the Republicans who will always kill any attempt to upgrade employment laws. The Chambers of Commerce is a powerful lobby. Not about to lose on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
As others have stated, we already have restrictions on immigration. We should keep them and have an amendment to make citizenship based on the citizenship of at least one parent. That would reduce the amount of illegal immigrants having their families "broken up" with deportation since you can send back all of them since they aren't citizens.
All it takes is a Constitutional amendment which has not the chance of a snowball in hell.
The US restricts immigration has for a century or more.
No one is in favor of unrestricted immigration except perhaps some lunatic fringe libertarians.
The issues deal with things like the rules and H1Bs and quotas etc. I personally would like to see tighter restrictions on H1Bs and modifications so they become free agents after a short period. I would also llike to see regulations making outsourcing of jobs difficult.
The illegal immigration issue is that we allowed to many to get in and established and have neither the resources or the will to throw them out. And if we actually put up the needed 10 of billions of dollars each year it is not certain we could actually do it. It is likely that attempting such a program will turn out to be political suicide to those in support.
Until now.... President Trump could make it illegal to employ illegals.
I never claimed it required them to follow it. I'm sure there are many times one government official or department doesn't cooperate with another, but I don't see why this should be considered acceptable when it is common sense.
BTW, who is reimbursing these departments when they arrest a criminal? If cost is more important than law enforcement, why arrest any criminal?
Arresting and holding a criminal is a local task and paid for locally. Holding an illegal alien is no violation of local law and should not be paid for locally. And note the propensity to hold and black mail arrestees is becoming an issue. So it may turn out that the locals should not hold people without significant evidence. It appears here we have been extorting people into guilty pleas by simply not letting them out of jail unless they plead guilty. Bad stuff.
Arresting and holding a criminal is a local task and paid for locally. Holding an illegal alien is no violation of local law and should not be paid for locally. And note the propensity to hold and black mail arrestees is becoming an issue. So it may turn out that the locals should not hold people without significant evidence. It appears here we have been extorting people into guilty pleas by simply not letting them out of jail unless they plead guilty. Bad stuff.
These criminals ended up in the local jail by committing crimes locally.
Sanchez had been concvicted of crimes in San Fransisco something like six times. Which do you think is cheaper for San Francisco, holding Sanchez for 72 hours or paying to arrest him, have a trial for him and then house him for months for the next local crime he commits instead of being sent out of the country?
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.
