What are your thoughts on Illegal Immigration?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Wow, what a bigot.

If you are an example of the illegal immigrants we can expect, no thanks.

My family came here in the early 20th century from Eastern Europe.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

"illegal immigrants" actually contribute more to this country than the fat, out-of-work, angry white guys who watch Fox News all day. Can we get INS to deport those people?

Man you are a genius... Illegal immigrants contribute more than unemployed people. Well if you are going that route, we'd better round up a whole bunch of black folk and ship em out.

Maybe if we didn't have so many illegal immigrants a black man could find a job. Screwed by the democrats again!

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Man you are a genius... Illegal immigrants contribute more than unemployed people. Well if you are going that route, we'd better round up a whole bunch of black folk and ship em out.

Maybe if we didn't have so many illegal immigrants a black man could find a job. Screwed by the democrats again!

Man you really are racist.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Man you really are racist.

Actually I am not by any stretch. But you are good at trying to shut down discussion by calling people racist. Screw you.

You are obviously a bigot who deserves censure. I haven't proposed doing anything other than

-- Securing the border so low-wage, low-education people cannot come into the country ILLEGALLY. You get that, it is AGAINST THE LAW to sneak into our country.

Now I might be willing to deport those "lazy ass white people" who hire "ILLEGAL ALIENS" to do work. That I could get behind, they deserve jail time.

As far as racist it sounds like you are the racist. You just said you wanted to deport those unemployed white folks ( because they are lazy and don't,work,like ILLEGAL ALIENS ). Well if you want to deport some unemployed folks you should probably start with the folks who have the largest percentage unemployed by race, ( black people ). Of course there will be more unemployed black people once Bambi legalizes 5 million or so ILLEGAL ALIENS to compete with them.

Lots of luck black democrat voters, you just got dumped for the young secretary.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Actually I am not by any stretch. But you are good at trying to shut down discussion by calling people racist. Screw you.

You are obviously a bigot who deserves censure. I haven't proposed doing anything other than

-- Securing the border so low-wage, low-education people cannot come into the country ILLEGALLY. You get that, it is AGAINST THE LAW to sneak into our country.

Now I might be willing to deport those "lazy ass white people" who hire "ILLEGAL ALIENS" to do work. That I could get behind, they deserve jail time.

As far as racist it sounds like you are the racist. You just said you wanted to deport those unemployed white folks ( because they are lazy and don't,work,like ILLEGAL ALIENS ). Well if you want to deport some unemployed folks you should probably start with the folks who have the largest percentage unemployed by race, ( black people ). Of course there will be more unemployed black people once Bambi legalizes 5 million or so ILLEGAL ALIENS to compete with them.

Lots of luck black democrat voters, you just got dumped for the young secretary.

A) I"m white

B) I think Fox News viewers are lazy

C) Just pointing out Fox news viewers are not a diverse demographic

D) You said "Illegal immigrants contribute more than unemployed people. Well if you are going that route, we'd better round up a whole bunch of black folk and ship em out."

[dude1394]

So I'm wondering why Bambi is doing this now? It's an executive action and so he could do it whenever he wants.

So I'm starting to think he really doesn't want to try and negotiate a deal with the other side because, he really just doesn't want to negotiate. With Reid in charge he never had to worry about vetoing a common sense bill. Say the senate in good faith tried to come up with a bill that the house would pass. I'm thinking prove that the borders are secure. It is funny that the current ins chief says we have a security problem, but the prior one, since gone, says we were all hunky dory.

Anyway, prove the borders are secure, phase in legalization, lower the number of current immigrants, never allow citizenship and he'd get an actual bill. You can negotiate any of these but the above would pass the house.

But he's really not interested in that compromise, he's actually never been interested in much of any compromise from what I can recall.

[LSMF]

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by LSMF

We do have a legal system. If Republicans are so confident that this is not legal they can sue him and stop it.

[dude1394]

A) So what, are you going to deport yourself?
B) What does fox news have to do with anything?
C) What does fox news have to do with anything?
D) I'm riffing on what YOU said. It was quite bigoted.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

D) I'm riffing on what YOU said. It was quite bigoted.

Nobody was born a Fox News viewer. It is not racist for me to state a commonly known fact that Fox News viewers are lazy. However, it was racist for you to call black people lazy.

[dude1394]

You go Bambi. Black Americans are being played for suckers.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...f-amnesty.html

"Whatever their noble intentions, these cities generally suffer the largest degree of income inequality, notes a recent Brookings study. In fact, according to an analysis by Mark Schill at the Praxis Strategy Group, African-American incomes in New York are barely half those of whites and, in San Francisco somewhat below half. In contrast, cities with broader economies like Dallas and Houston, have black populations earning sixty five percent of white incomes. Similarly, Latinos in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco do far worse, relative to incomes, than their Sunbelt counterparts, compared to whites.

These trends could worsen in precisely those areas with the biggest concentrations of undocumented immigrants covered by Obama’s executive order.

Take, for example, the borough of the Bronx in New York City. The most Latino of all New York’s counties, in the Bronx, roughly one in three households live in poverty, the highest rate of any large urban county."

[LSMF]

Wow...Just Wow...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjG65YFnsR0

[LSMF]

Jeh "I don't see it that way" Johnson. Perhaps he could have explained to us exactly which way he did see it? Or maybe he's just blind.

[dude1394]

We need to be more like canada. Funny that while we are busy getting our liberal on, canada straightens up and flies right.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...+Article+Links



"It has been more than four years since the MV Sun Sea arrived in Esquimalt, bearing 492 Tamil passengers claiming to be refugees. Many people feared that more ships would come to our shores, bearing thousands of claimants. But that didn’t happen, because of root-and-branch reforms to Canada’s immigration system brought in by the Harper government.



Those reforms – some of which are already in place, with the rest slated to take effect January a1, 2015 – are changing the nature of immigration to this country.

Entrepreneurial, well educated, with skills that fit the job market and a good command of English or French, immigrants today are better equipped than ever to integrate successfully into our economy and society. Such immigrants are likely to believe that people can and should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, just as they did.

You could call them “bootstrap immigrants.” They are contributing mightily to Canada’s transformation from an Atlantic nation to a Pacific nation. And they are making this country a more conservative place.

I examined the changes to immigration and refugee policy in a policy brief released this week by the Centre for International Governance and Innovation, which you can find here.

The paper examines how the Conservatives have made immigration and refugee policy less compassionate and more economically focused than it was under previous Liberal governments.

For example, refugee claimants from 42 countries designated as safe now have their claims rejected essentially out-of-hand. The reasoning is that someone from, say, the United States could not possibly be at risk of persecution because the United States does not persecute its citizens.

Claimants from less safe countries have their cases dealt with in months rather than years. As a result, the number of people arriving at our borders unannounced and claiming refugee status has shrunk dramatically – by 80 per cent, from designated safe countries.

The Conservatives still admit as many refugees as previous governments – about 12,000 a year – but these are either privately sponsored or brought in under the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In either case, refugees to Canada are now far more carefully screened than in the past to ensure that they can integrate successfully.

Family-class immigration has virtually vanished under the Tories. Instead, parents and grandparents can visit for up to 10 years using a new super visa, provided their families are able and willing to pay for health care and other costs."

[dude1394]

Good job barry. Only 96% of the illegals enticed into the country this summer "dissappeared". I sure am glad we received such law-abiding new citizens. Maybe they are busy doing the jobs that americans will not do, like finding fake social security cards.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...g-illegals.php

"The wave of Central American illegals welcomed by the Obama administration this year is one of the major stories of 2014. Yet the media have mostly gone silent on it.

The Obama administration’s preferred method of dealing with the illegals was release pending administrative hearings. How are the hearings going?

At NRO, Mark Krikorian notes that the investigative unit at Houston’s KPRC decided to find out (video below). The Daily Signal’s Natalie Johnson also picks up the story. Krikorian jumps to the story’s major finding” “Looking at the completed cases of people who snuck over the border and were released over a three-month period, the reporter found that more than 90 percent of them didn’t show up for their immigration hearings and joined the illegal population.”


Robert Arnold’s KPRC story is posted online here. Arnold reports:

According to the [Executive Office of Immigration Review], of the 30,467 families and unaccompanied children caught crossing the border between July and October, only 22 percent have received a final disposition as to whether they will be allowed to stay in the U.S. or be deported.

Of the 15,614 families caught crossing the border, but not detained, 4,197 have been ordered removed from the U.S. However, 96 percent of those removal orders were done “in absentia.”

The EOIR states an “in absentia” order is done when a person fails to show in immigration court.

Out of the 1,428 families caught crossing the border and detained, 21 have been ordered removed. Forty-three percent of these orders were done “in absentia.”

Of the 13,425 unaccompanied children caught crossing the border between July and October, 1,671 have been ordered removed from the U.S. Ninety-two percent of these orders were done “in absentia.”

Typically the EOIR reports an annual 11 to 15 percent “in absentia” rate.

Arnold concludes on this mordant note courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security:

Officials with the Department of Homeland Security reiterated all those caught crossing the border after Jan. 1 are a top priority to have their cases decided in immigration court and to track down those who’ve disappeared."

What a relief; they’ll be right on it! In reality, we can only hope that KPRC stays on the case.