Welcome To Trump World

[Maof]

"I am willing to bet that you have not called the families of the lists I provided and told them that it was all fake."

Oh, those websites are not fake but, they most certainly are inflated versions of the truth. Kinda like what comes out of dotards mouth. Lies, misinformation, more lies, lies, lies..... Ya know, people tend to believe that shit, cult-like I'd say.

[Maof]

1950s TV episode featured con man named "Trump" who wanted to build a wall

Here's the full episode: Trackdown - The End of the World [[1958) [[23 minutes)

They don't write 'em like that anymore.

I don't see anything mystical about this coincidence. It's more amazing that it hasn't surfaced before now.

Someone just sent this to me a few days ago. Too much of a coincidence.

[Canadian Visitor]

Facts:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-reality.html

Number of arrests of illegal border crossings at the US Mexico border are at their lowest since 1973.

The NYT link above shows a graph back to 1990.

At peak during the Clinton years, just over 1.5M arrests per year.

Today in/around 400,000

Note that drugs are also discussed.

The vast majority entering the US from outside occurs via LEGAL ports-of-entry by vehicle.

Also note the crime rate is LOWER among undocumented [[illegals) than it is among native-born Americans.

Clearly if fighting crime is your priority, the answer is all illegals and deport legal Americans instead!

LOL

[Canadian Visitor]

Also of note, this from Pew Research, showing that the number of illegals in the US is already declining substantially without a wall.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...on-in-the-u-s/

The peak was just over 12 million about 10 years ago, and has since fallen to about 10.7 million.

[Richard]

"I am willing to bet that you have not called the families of the lists I provided and told them that it was all fake."

Oh, those websites are not fake but, they most certainly are inflated versions of the truth. Kinda like what comes out of dotards mouth. Lies, misinformation, more lies, lies, lies..... Ya know, people tend to believe that shit, cult-like I'd say.

So what you are saying is that the list of names is fake?

They do say that there is really no tracking system in place because sanctuary cities do not share information.

So they explain how the information was compiled and that was from 2006,so there was no Trump influence back then.

The information was complied from news reports,death certificates,DWI accident reports,etc so it was compiled from various public information sources and news agencies,which makes it easy enough to determine validity,there is no agenda,simply a list of those killed by illegal immigrants.

[Richard]

Facts:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-reality.html

Number of arrests of illegal border crossings at the US Mexico border are at their lowest since 1973.

The NYT link above shows a graph back to 1990.

At peak during the Clinton years, just over 1.5M arrests per year.

Today in/around 400,000

Note that drugs are also discussed.

The vast majority entering the US from outside occurs via LEGAL ports-of-entry by vehicle.

Also note the crime rate is LOWER among undocumented [[illegals) than it is among native-born Americans.

Clearly if fighting crime is your priority, the answer is all illegals and deport legal Americans instead!

LOL

Undetected illegal border crossings have dropped at an even faster rate, from 851,000 in 2006 to approximately 62,000 in 2016, according to estimates by the Department of Homeland Security.

How exactly does one even count "undetected" illegal border crossers?

That is like saying there are fewer people sneaking across the border,if border funding was cut back,like it was during the previous administration,you have fewer agents catching border jumpers and the numbers would effect that in the charts.

They can only compile information on those that they catch,if they are crossing without being caught the graphs do not know they exist.

The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 [[the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico. The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons increased about 7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal year 2005 while the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails increased about 35 percent from about 220,000 in fiscal year 2003.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

Notice when doing research there has been no updated information sense 2009.

[Bham1982]

Lol life is simple all one needs to do is prove that the listed names on the sites are fake.

Your links are fake, and no sane person is gonna review that idiocy.

And your logic of "if a person is a victim of a crime by an illegal, then we need to terrorize immigrants and build a gigantic wall, and have this all directed by someone who mass-hires, marries and enables illegals" obviously makes zero sense.

The facts are that A. Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a level far lower than immigrants or non-immigrants [[so removing illegal immigrants increases crime rates, obviously) and B. Trump has zero interest in removing illegals, given the fact he hires and marries them with zero shame, and hasn't done a thing to actually attack the problem despite a friendly Congress in two years in the WH.

If you truly cared about restricting illegal immigration, the last thing you would do is worship Trump. That's like saying you support Israel so you're worshipping Hamas. You would support bipartisan immigration reform legislation, which would mandate E-Verify and reform the tourist visa process.

[Richard]

I do support E Verify and not only revisiting the tourist visa process but the entire immigration system as we know it is broken.

You cannot shut it down and rebuild it,it has to be a step by step process.
I do not need to worship Trump in order to have thoughts and views,I have experience in dealing with the immigration process.

As an employer and living in a heavy illegal immigrant state,E verify is a joke and has many loopholes,its efficiency and effectiveness is based on enforcement,enforcement is based on funding levels.

You see very large companies being charged with employing illegals because it justifies the cost of the investigation.

Large illegal immigrant communities are self sustaining when it comes to employment and is made up of many small business and it is easy to fly under the wire.

There is no way in the world that they could go after 10s of thousands of small bushiness for employing illegals the costs would be in the billions.

Close the revolving door first,otherwise you are just chasing your tail,that has nothing to do with loyalty to anybody,it is just common sense.

[jcole]

I do not monopolize anything anybody is free to join the discussion,but how is a three word line continuously stating distaste towards the current president followed by a twitter link meme contributing to the discussion ?

I try to involve you in to the discussion but your response is the same every time,nothing to back up your thoughts,just your thought on how you personally feel about somebody.

Excuse me while I guffaw

[oladub]

Facts:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-reality.html

Number of arrests of illegal border crossings at the US Mexico border are at their lowest since 1973.

The NYT link above shows a graph back to 1990.

At peak during the Clinton years, just over 1.5M arrests per year.

Today in/around 400,000

Note that drugs are also discussed.

The vast majority entering the US from outside occurs via LEGAL ports-of-entry by vehicle.

Also note the crime rate is LOWER among undocumented [[illegals) than it is among native-born Americans.

Clearly if fighting crime is your priority, the answer is all illegals and deport legal Americans instead!

LOL

Fact: The NY Times is getting sloppy. All illegal aliens have violated immigration laws. Crimes include felonies and misdemeanors. That means 100% of illegal aliens are criminals.

As of April 2018, The number of "illegal" crossing attempts at the U.S. Southwest border triple in March compared with a year ago, the government says. -CNBC

More recently, "Illegal border crossings into the United States continued at a high pace in December, with more than 50,000 people detained for a third straight month as the number of families illegally entering surged, US Customs and Border Protection said Wednesday."

[[A 2016 Homeland Security) report found 54 percent of people who entered illegally between border crossings got caught in the 2015 fiscal year.

If you think dealing with 100,000 illegal aliens invading the U.S. monthly is "LOL", invite them to your country. It costs, for instance an average of $13,300/year for the average public school student. Either taxpayers have to foot that bill for additional illegal minors and anchor babies or we reduce educational services to American children.

More nonsense from your NY Times article, "The vast majority entering the US from outside occurs via LEGAL ports-of-entry by vehicle." It's easier to arrest drug runners when they come through a funnel of police and dogs at ports of entry. We really don't know who and what is slipping through hundreds of miles of unfenced borders. Your article said "Most drugs are seized at ports of entry, not along the open border" Well, so what? That might also mean ICE doesn't have enough agents to police the unfenced areas of the border.

Also, a higher percentage of aliens escaping the lousy culture they bring with them are declaring themselves to be "refugees" after passing through Mexico. They overcrowd our prisons and Obama judges eventually come along and order the government to release them. It's the last time many of them are seen. They must think we are stupid.

[Canadian Visitor]

Fact: The NY Times is getting sloppy. All illegal aliens have violated immigration laws. Crimes include felonies and misdemeanors. That means 100% of illegal aliens are criminals.

You know better than to be this silly. I'm very happy to engage you in constructive conversation.

But that's just too much. Of course people who have overstayed their VISAs or entered at a non-designated entry point have broken the law, as a rule of thumb in any event. Though the offense is not necessarily criminal. [[you can break the law and not be a criminal, it can be a civil offense). But regardless of how the breach of the law is categorized you are well aware that the assertion being made was whether they were criminal in any other way. That is to say is the United States being inundated w/thieves/rapists/murders? The answer to that, is clearly NO. That was the point. Please don't be obtuse and pretend you missed that.

****

If you think dealing with 100,000 illegal aliens invading the U.S. monthly is "LOL", invite them to your country. It costs, for instance an average of $13,300/year for the average public school student. Either taxpayers have to foot that bill for additional illegal minors and anchor babies or we reduce educational services to American children.

Putting aside that I've told you in specific terms, repeatedly that I opposed illegal immigration, and have discussed what means I would support to curtail it......

I want to again reiterate that that is not the point of the article.

Its not 'illegal immigration, YEAH!' The point is that its not a crisis. A concern sure, a problem I'd agree, but not a 'crisis' that overblows matters.

***

As to 50,000 per month, which is not likely to be the sustained number, nor has it been in recent years.......

That's 600,000 per year. You aspersion to Canada is a problem. The United States in 9x larger by population.

So divide that 600,000 by 9. You would get just over 66,000 per year. Newsflash, Canada already takes in more than that.

That doesn't make us better or worse, but the assertion that we somehow don't take in refugees when we take in far more than the United States in proportion to our population and economy is something you have repeatedly brushed over.

Stop!

Being respected, means being respectful. Being respectful means being thoughtful, not just ranting.

****

More nonsense from your NY Times article, "The vast majority entering the US from outside occurs via LEGAL ports-of-entry by vehicle." It's easier to arrest drug runners when they come through a funnel of police and dogs at ports of entry. We really don't know who and what is slipping through hundreds of miles of unfenced borders. Your article said "Most drugs are seized at ports of entry, not along the open border" Well, so what? That might also mean ICE doesn't have enough agents to police the unfenced areas of the border.

In point of fact, the article is asserting that these drugs are brought in in quantities that demands use of trucks or planes or boats or trains, for the most part.

There are no tractor trailers traversing the road-less desert where there is no fence or wall.

Its not happening.

That's not to suggest some individuals aren't walking some personal-use drugs across, or the like or some very small-time dealer.

Its to suggest that its impractical to move such volumes on your person or an atv or some small suv that might be able to handle off-roading and also not get caught.

This is not a defense of illegal immigration or of drug-running.

Its a statement that interdicting either is about dealing w/shipping containers, air planes, over-stayed visas, those who legally enter on a day trip and never go home, far more than it is a fence in a desert.

Its also about noting that the situation is not a crisis nor as described.

One can argue for a border wall or anything else one wishes.

But do so armed with the facts, not foaming at the mouth.

The latter is not endearing, nor does it lend itself to being persuasive.

[Bham1982]

I do support E Verify and not only revisiting the tourist visa process but the entire immigration system as we know it is broken.

No, you don't. You support Trump and the shutdown. You cannot simultaneously claim to support the opposite position.

Trump opposes E-Verify, doesn't use it in his own properties [[in fact he actively seeks out illegals), and Trump opposes any reform in tourist visas [[how would he find his next wife?). And the shutdown has completely stopped all E-Verify checks.

[Richard]

No, you don't. You support Trump and the shutdown. You cannot simultaneously claim to support the opposite position.

Trump opposes E-Verify, doesn't use it in his own properties [[in fact he actively seeks out illegals), and Trump opposes any reform in tourist visas [[how would he find his next wife?). And the shutdown has completely stopped all E-Verify checks.

Yes,I support a secure border like every other country in the world does.

Yes I can simultaneously support policies that include a shut down if necessary to provide that border security,unlike you that can only focus on a pin point view of the bigger picture.

So what that the shut down has stopped E Verify,it is just a computer that inputs and outputs data,a squirrel could run it.

It is no different then a police officer running your drivers license,input a SS number and it cross checks it with different agencies,input a stolen SS number and ID and if it is clean then it will reflect that,it is a machine that can be manlipulated by the information that you feed it.

There is not some person standing on the other end saying,sure I will get right on this.

They could have left it plugged in and went home to their paid holiday time.

Even at that it is the states that regulate illegal hires,the feds just provide the data base to cross reference.

You keep mentioning E Verify but in your responses it is clear that you actually know little about it or how it works in the real world.

Hamra, which also operates Panera Bread and Noodles & Co. stores, uses E-Verify to check on new hires. While the system is mostly voluntary, 24 states have some sort of requirement for employers to use it, according to LawLogix. Dunkin’ Brands Group Inc. compels its franchisees to use E-Verify, and Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. uses the system as well.


We are continuing to hire and complete the necessary paperwork just as we normally do,” said Laurie Schalow, a spokeswoman for Chipotle, which doesn’t franchise and had almost 64,000 hourly workers as of December 2017. Wendy’s Co. says the company has looked into it and isn’t aware of any disruptions to its hiring because of the shutdown.


White Castle said only six of its restaurants in Tennessee use E-Verify, and that they’re not changing much. Since the shutdown, the locations have hired 16 people, and are keeping a computer spreadsheet with information to use when the site is running again.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-legal-workers

I guess the world has not ended after all.


E-VERIFY: INFORMATION FOR EMPLOYERS AFFECTED BY THe

SHUTDOWN


Yesterday, the USCIS announced that it has resumed operations following the recent government shutdown. According to the USCIS, all E-Verify services were currently available.

Guess what? That was the shutdown of 2013 when Trump was not even president,but yet the country lived another day.

https://fedhrproject.com/2013/10/18/...-the-shutdown/


For SnGs sense you posted that it was a fact that Trump actively seeks out illegals to hire,can you provide those facts?

Otherwise it would appear that you are just making it up as you go along for the theatrics of it all.

[oladub]

You know better than to be this silly. I'm very happy to engage you in constructive conversation.

But that's just too much. Of course people who have overstayed their VISAs or entered at a non-designated entry point have broken the law, as a rule of thumb in any event. Though the offense is not necessarily criminal. [[you can break the law and not be a criminal, it can be a civil offense). But regardless of how the breach of the law is categorized you are well aware that the assertion being made was whether they were criminal in any other way. That is to say is the United States being inundated w/thieves/rapists/murders? The answer to that, is clearly NO. That was the point. Please don't be obtuse and pretend you missed that.

****


Putting aside that I've told you in specific terms, repeatedly that I opposed illegal immigration, and have discussed what means I would support to curtail it......

I want to again reiterate that that is not the point of the article.

Its not 'illegal immigration, YEAH!' The point is that its not a crisis. A concern sure, a problem I'd agree, but not a 'crisis' that overblows matters.

***

As to 50,000 per month, which is not likely to be the sustained number, nor has it been in recent years.......

That's 600,000 per year. You aspersion to Canada is a problem. The United States in 9x larger by population.

So divide that 600,000 by 9. You would get just over 66,000 per year. Newsflash, Canada already takes in more than that.

That doesn't make us better or worse, but the assertion that we somehow don't take in refugees when we take in far more than the United States in proportion to our population and economy is something you have repeatedly brushed over.

Stop!

Being respected, means being respectful. Being respectful means being thoughtful, not just ranting.

****



In point of fact, the article is asserting that these drugs are brought in in quantities that demands use of trucks or planes or boats or trains, for the most part.

There are no tractor trailers traversing the road-less desert where there is no fence or wall.

Its not happening.

That's not to suggest some individuals aren't walking some personal-use drugs across, or the like or some very small-time dealer.

Its to suggest that its impractical to move such volumes on your person or an atv or some small suv that might be able to handle off-roading and also not get caught.

This is not a defense of illegal immigration or of drug-running.

Its a statement that interdicting either is about dealing w/shipping containers, air planes, over-stayed visas, those who legally enter on a day trip and never go home, far more than it is a fence in a desert.

Its also about noting that the situation is not a crisis nor as described.

One can argue for a border wall or anything else one wishes.

But do so armed with the facts, not foaming at the mouth.

The latter is not endearing, nor does it lend itself to being persuasive.

You wrote in post #2403 that according to your NY Times article, "Also note the crime rate is LOWER among undocumented [[illegals) than it is among native-born Americans."

Repeat: Illegal aliens have all committed misdemeanors or felonies. Both categories are crimes. All illegal aliens, 100% of them, are therefore "criminals" by definition.

"A misdemeanor is considered a crime of low seriousness, and a felony one of high seriousness. ... In the United States, the federal government generally considers a crime punishable with incarceration for one year or less to be a misdemeanor. All other crimes are considered felonies." -wikipedia

You are arguing with the dictionary. It doesn't matter "whether they were criminal in any other way." They are still criminals. I was trying to point out how, in this instance, the generally respected NY Times became so lazy, arrogant, and/or sloppy that it insulted our intelligence by ignoring the meaning of words.

I like Canada but if Canadians wants to elect Justin Trudeau and flood Canada with immigrants, that is your business. I never made "the assertion that [[Canadians) somehow don't take in refugees". You misread what I wrote. I said that if you don't think 100,000 people a month trying to cross into the U.S. is a problem, then you can have them [[too). You wrote "LOL". I don't think the Mexican border situation is as funny as you seem to.

However, your point that big trucks can haul more drugs is valid.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong too but you are coming off as patronizing.

[Bham1982]

You wrote in post #2403 that according to your NY Times article, "Also note the crime rate is LOWER among undocumented [[illegals) than it is among native-born Americans."

Repeat: Illegal aliens have all committed misdemeanors or felonies. Both categories are crimes. All illegal aliens, 100% of them, are therefore "criminals" by definition.

This is a lie. Undocumented presence in the U.S. is a violation, not a misdemeanor. You aren't a "criminal" if you're undocumented in the U.S. anymore than you're a "criminal if you go 30 MPH in a 25 zone.

And your argument is circular and nonsensical. You oppose a path to legalization because the applicants are illegal. But they're illegal because there's no path to legalization.

We know that immigrants commit crimes at far lower rates than native-born U.S. citizens, and undocumented immigrants have even lower crime rates than legal immigrants. In other words, if you could magically remove all undocumented immigrants, the U.S. would be a more dangerous place.

We all know why you don't like Mexicans, why you want all those scary brown foreigners removed and why you simultaneously support the illegal-enabler-in-chief. It isn't like this is some great mystery.

[oladub]

This is a lie. Undocumented presence in the U.S. is a violation, not a misdemeanor. You aren't a "criminal" if you're undocumented in the U.S. anymore than you're a "criminal if you go 30 MPH in a 25 zone.

And your argument is circular and nonsensical. You oppose a path to legalization because the applicants are illegal. But they're illegal because there's no path to legalization.

We know that immigrants commit crimes at far lower rates than native-born U.S. citizens, and undocumented immigrants have even lower crime rates than legal immigrants. In other words, if you could magically remove all undocumented immigrants, the U.S. would be a more dangerous place.

We all know why you don't like Mexicans, why you want all those scary brown foreigners removed and why you simultaneously support the illegal-enabler-in-chief. It isn't like this is some great mystery.

You don't agree with the dictionary either.

You deserve two Pinochios. When Kamala Harris said “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal” even the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" gave her two Pinochios. "Illegally entering the country [[for example, illegally crossing the border), re-entering the country after being removed or falsifying documents to enter the country are all criminally punishable." Legally, however, one is not a criminal for doing criminal things like illegally crossing the border until being declared so by a court.

Think of it this way: A bank robber caught in bank vault is not a criminal until convicted in a court. I don't oppose a path to legalization. Millions of people come here and become citizens legally without jumping the queue. I enjoyed how you equivocated driving 30 in a 25 zone with violating immigration laws. Yes, both are punishable with their respective legal penalties; a fine and a trip home. Do you think bank robbers caught in bank vaults should also have a virtually consequence free path to normalcy and maybe a federal bank account with free health care, school vouchers, and a job? If not, why not?

Given the disproportional percentage of illegal aliens in jails and prisons across the Country, the dictionary definition of "crime" including both felonies and misdemeanors, and the relatively shorter time illegal aliens have been in the U.S. than lifelong U.S. citizens, your talking point about Illegal aliens [[note the word "illegal") committing a lower rate of crime is hokum.

Did I say I "don't like Mexicans"? Cite where I wrote that. I don't like illegal immigration. Mexicans are numerically the largest group if that's sort of what you mean. If you are instead worried about "brown people" you might consider the hundreds of thousand of dead Arabs and millions of refugees Obama's policies contributed to. However, like your equivocating going five over the speed limit with taking American jobs and resources, I suspect you equivocate two dead Central American children whose parents put them at risk with hundreds of thousands of dead Arabs. I'm always struck by liberals not comprehending proportionality so I'm not singling you out.

[Canadian Visitor]

I like Canada but if Canadians wants to elect Justin Trudeau and flood Canada with immigrants, that is your business. I never made "the assertion that [[Canadians) somehow don't take in refugees". You misread what I wrote. I said that if you don't think 100,000 people a month trying to cross into the U.S. is a problem, then you can have them [[too). You wrote "LOL". I don't think the Mexican border situation is as funny as you seem to.

In point of fact that is not what I LOL'd

This is what I was LOL'ing.

Clearly if fighting crime is your priority, the answer is to keep all the illegals and deport legal Americans instead!

LOL

My point was to puncture the balloon that this issue is a crisis BECAUSE most or an inordinate number of illegals pose a criminal danger to Americans.

Clearly that is not the case.
Clearly, native-born Americans are more likely to murder and more likely to steal as per the stats.

Therefore if one's concern was crime-focused then one would support deporting native-born Americans and keeping the illegals.

Of course that's not what I'm suggesting. Rather I'm pointing out how silly and erroneous the argument being made happened to be.

You can oppose illegal immigration with perfectly valid arguments such as the impact on wages, particularly in low-skill and entry-level positions.

You can oppose illegal immigration because you like to see adherence to the law.

You can oppose illegal immigration because you wish to limit certain expenditures the state may incur as a result.

You can oppose illegal immigration because you see it as unfair to law-abiding immigrants and refugees.

All are legitimate points of conversation.

What is not legitimate is to argue that illegal immigrants writ-large as a group pose a material risk to the general public; that is patently false!

However, your point that big trucks can haul more drugs is valid.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong too but you are coming off as patronizing.

Irritated would be more like it.

I see the posting of things that either erroneous or misleading and it bothers me.

Its a choice on the part of a poster to say something they know to be wrong in order, in their mind, to further their argument.

In point of fact, it weakens their argument.

You don't need to correct what isn't substantively wrong.

You don't need to add superfluous flotsam to your arguments.

There are a whole bunch of perfectly good arguments against illegal immigration.

Stick to those.

Then having established that, we move on to a more constructive discussion.

What would actually result in less illegal immigration?

[[hint: a wall would do next to nothing)

What does one actually do about all those who previously arrived illegally?

[[ I know your answer, and this is where we fundamentally disagree, for the simple reason, your idea will never come to pass. Neither political party nor the current president will go for mass deportation. As such, to me, the only valuable discussion is one that is realistic in terms of its implement ability. )

[Bham1982]

You don't agree with the dictionary either.

"The dictionary" [[apparently there's only one), not U.S. federal law, determines that unauthorized alien presence within U.S. boundaries is a violation, not a misdemeanor. Who knew? Funny stuff from the desperately flailing Cult!

And I stopped reading there. The rest is racist gibberish.

[oladub]

"The dictionary" [[apparently there's only one), not U.S. federal law, determines that unauthorized alien presence within U.S. boundaries is a violation, not a misdemeanor. Who knew? Funny stuff from the desperately flailing Cult!

And I stopped reading there. The rest is racist gibberish.

" illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and, if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony."

I cited my source. It was wikipedia. You can also google, " are misdemeanors crimes "You are arguing with a dictionary. If you want to make up new meanings for words, it hurts your credibility such as it is.

QUOTATION: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.” -Lewis Carroll

[Bham1982]

I cited my source. It was wikipedia. You can also google, " are misdemeanors crimes "You are arguing with a dictionary. If you want to make up new meanings for words, it hurts your credibility such as it is.

You're beyond clueless. Trump cultists hate immigrants but don't have a clue about how they arrive.

Illegal immigrants, overwhelmingly, don't enter the country illegally. They arrive via tourist [[or other) visa. It's very easy to get a tourist visa, and very hard to cross into the U.S. illegally.

Overstaying a tourist visa is a civil violation, not a misdemeanor, no different than jaywalking or running a stop sign. No one is pole-vaulting the border when they can just fly in and stay.

And removing illegal immigrants commit far fewer crimes than native-born Americans, so removing illegals makes America less safe. If you want immigrants out, fine, but you aren't motivated by crime concerns.

[oladub]

In point of fact that is not what I LOL'd

This is what I was LOL'ing.

Clearly if fighting crime is your priority, the answer is to keep all the illegals and deport legal Americans instead!

LOL

My point was to puncture the balloon that this issue is a crisis BECAUSE most or an inordinate number of illegals pose a criminal danger to Americans.

Clearly that is not the case.
Clearly, native-born Americans are more likely to murder and more likely to steal as per the stats.

Therefore if one's concern was crime-focused then one would support deporting native-born Americans and keeping the illegals.

Of course that's not what I'm suggesting. Rather I'm pointing out how silly and erroneous the argument being made happened to be.

You can oppose illegal immigration with perfectly valid arguments such as the impact on wages, particularly in low-skill and entry-level positions.

You can oppose illegal immigration because you like to see adherence to the law.

You can oppose illegal immigration because you wish to limit certain expenditures the state may incur as a result.

You can oppose illegal immigration because you see it as unfair to law-abiding immigrants and refugees.

All are legitimate points of conversation.

What is not legitimate is to argue that illegal immigrants writ-large as a group pose a material risk to the general public; that is patently false!



Irritated would be more like it.

I see the posting of things that either erroneous or misleading and it bothers me.

Its a choice on the part of a poster to say something they know to be wrong in order, in their mind, to further their argument.

In point of fact, it weakens their argument.

You don't need to correct what isn't substantively wrong.

You don't need to add superfluous flotsam to your arguments.

There are a whole bunch of perfectly good arguments against illegal immigration.

Stick to those.

Then having established that, we move on to a more constructive discussion.

What would actually result in less illegal immigration?

[[hint: a wall would do next to nothing)

What does one actually do about all those who previously arrived illegally?

[[ I know your answer, and this is where we fundamentally disagree, for the simple reason, your idea will never come to pass. Neither political party nor the current president will go for mass deportation. As such, to me, the only valuable discussion is one that is realistic in terms of its implement ability. )

You continue to be, in my opinion, extremely patronizing.

Violations of border laws are crimes; either misdemeanors or felonies. We can stop there but did your information consider how many years illegal aliens have been in the Country vs. lifelong Americans?I don't have those statistics; maybe you do. If, for instance, the average illegal alien has been in the "U.S." for seven years and the average Americans has lived here 35 years, then your statistic is only valid if Americans commit 7x as many crimes per capita.

I disagree with you that , in your words, "illegal immigrants writ-large as a group pose a material risk to the general public." First, the legal and more succinct term is "illegal alien" not "illegal immigrant". Alien just means "non-citizen" so "illegal non-citizen" means the same thing without horrifying the PC crowd. Example: three 9/11 terrorists had overstayed their visas. Were they "non-citizens" or "immigrants"? I think they were non-citizens. You suggest they were immigrants but who made them immigrants? Such is the value of succinct legal language. [[I can be patronizing too.)

Those 9/11 crew members were extreme. The other millions of illegal non-citizens, however, do pose a material risk. Unless you deny supply/demand, they drag down American wages, take jobs from Americans, and receive social service and educational resources dedicated to Americans requiring either more taxes or reduced services for American. No one claiming to be "green' should support the extra infrastructure and demands on mineral and food extraction that tens of millions of extra people require. As a foreigner, I don't expect you to care about our Constitution but our Constitution says that naturalization law must be established by congress and must be uniform. One set of laws for legal aliens and another for illegal aliens is not uniform.

"What does one actually do about all those who previously arrived illegally?"

President Reagan gave amnesty to 3.6M illegal aliens to solve the problem once and for all in return for promises of border security. The promises were not kept. That didn't work. There are many options from imprisoning cheating employers to removing all health and educational freebees. The only thing on the table right now is a wall or fence and Democrats will not either meet the President half way on even a fence at half of Trump's $5.7B request so the government remains closed.

[Bham1982]

You continue to be, in my opinion, extremely patronizing.

Violations of border laws are crimes; either misdemeanors or felonies.

This is a lie. They are civil violations. Putting aside your circular non-argument [["I oppose illegals because they're illegal but I also oppose a path to legal status"), an illegal immigrant has committed a civil violation, not a criminal misdemeanor.

The facts are that U.S. citizens commit crimes at much higher rates than illegals. The more illegals in a jurisdiction, the safer the jurisdiction:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0c2dee8ca8f0

[Richard]

Just shows how broken the system is,we should follow the lead of Canada.

Yesterday, two Mexican citizens, Pablo Daniel Gonzalez and Miguel Aguilar Gonzalez, were sentenced to two years for entering Canada illegally. The men had entered Canada along the BC-Washington border near the city of Abottsford, in December 2012. The men have been charged with violating Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [[IRPA). A third man, a resident of Canada, was charged with aiding and abetting their violation of this act but he will not face trial until March. The sentencing reminds us all that there are strict penalties for trying to get around Canada's immigration laws. The best thing to do is always to follow all laws and any instructions by CIC or CBSA personnel. These men could have avoided two year prison sentences by coming to Canada in a legal way.

[Bham1982]

Just shows how broken the system is,we should follow the lead of Canada.

Huh? We should more than double U.S. immigration inflow, while quintupling refugee inflow? All while providing a legal path to immigration for laborers?

And you simultaneously support Trump?

[Canadian Visitor]

Just shows how broken the system is,we should follow the lead of Canada.

Yesterday, two Mexican citizens, Pablo Daniel Gonzalez and Miguel Aguilar Gonzalez, were sentenced to two years for entering Canada illegally. The men had entered Canada along the BC-Washington border near the city of Abottsford, in December 2012. The men have been charged with violating Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [[IRPA). A third man, a resident of Canada, was charged with aiding and abetting their violation of this act but he will not face trial until March. The sentencing reminds us all that there are strict penalties for trying to get around Canada's immigration laws. The best thing to do is always to follow all laws and any instructions by CIC or CBSA personnel. These men could have avoided two year prison sentences by coming to Canada in a legal way.

As usual your bullshit even when there's some truth hidden in your post.

Why not tell people why they got prison?

Hint, it wasn't cause they crossed the border illegally.

That they didn't ask for refugee status or asylum....yah, that was a problem.........

But they still likely would have been deported only............

It was the small matter of their having an illegal 9mm, illegal ammo and being in possession of stolen property.....

$250,000 US in cash, by the way.

Plus they lied to investigators.

https://www.abbynews.com/news/pair-a...wo-years-each/

Nice of you to omit all the important details.