Sign in to follow this  
Amati

Trump wants to send Illegal Aliens to Sanctuary Cities

Recommended Posts

On 4/13/2019 at 9:07 AM, hermetic said:

send the asylum seekers to what ever cities have the most lawyers and court space.  put them on the docket as quickly as possible, and make the lawyers work pro bono

Many lawyers do lots of pro bono work.  You can't "make" anyone work for free.  I'd be happy to see the government do it's job.  Unfortunately, everything from the IRS to the EPA is underfunded.  Let's throw some more money at the defense department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump won this round, The reaction to his threat by the Dem's is priceless.

My understanding is some judge in CA ruled that the border Patrol can only hold asylum Families for 20 days. Where do they go on the 21st day?     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

these people are immigrants seeking asylum, have passed the first test, been given court documents, and are released at the border area.  they aren't illegal until they skip a court date.   what specific law would be broken by releasing them somewhere other than the border area?  like someplace with more lawyers, more court space, better chances of employment, and more doctors?

if you haven't seen, or know of this law, it's ok to say "I don't know"

What does the Constitution say? Hmm, I sem to recall it's something about "reserved to the States, or to the People" so it looks very much like the shoe is on the other foot. Unless there is a law specifically allowing the Feds to do it, they can't

If you don't like the answer I've given so far, then you can take it as "I don't know." I'm not a lawyer and am not willing to spend a lot of time trying to google it.

by your logic (?) then they are breaking the law by releasing them anywhere.  I just kinda though that when you accused another poster of being ignorant of the law, you actually knew what the law was.  I guess not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hermetic said:

by your logic (?) then they are breaking the law by releasing them anywhere.  I just kinda though that when you accused another poster of being ignorant of the law, you actually knew what the law was.  I guess not

Got it

You don't know either -AND- are unwilling to pay attention to people telling you shit you don't wanna hear.

Pretty safe to say that, if in your eyes I am ignorant of the law, I still know more about it than you or Saorsa.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Throw them out then.

Your first supposition is that they are guilty.  Your second that they are innocent.  Let them fill out the appropriate Visa application and then show up at the border.

If you wish to keep them in the country until their presence is proven legal or not then assign them a court date to show up at a court in a sanctuary city and transport them to that city to make it easy for them to attend.

 

That’s not how our laws or treaty obligations work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Trump won this round, The reaction to his threat by the Dem's is priceless.

And here we've the sock puppet doing the victory lap based on PR spin.

Trump said stupid, possibly illegal, certainly nasty shit. People got mad. Trump wins.

There's no bottom for Trumpalos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

And here we've the sock puppet doing the victory lap based on PR spin.

Trump said stupid, possibly illegal, certainly nasty shit. People got mad. Trump wins.

There's no bottom for Trumpalos.

Did your mother name you mismoyled?

Is your last name Jiblet?

If not you are as much a sock as I am. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socks are created, Returds are flicked fukers who pretend not to be flicked fukers. The Yolker is a sock if he has another ID here, my guess is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

Socks are created, Returds are flicked fukers who pretend not to be flicked fukers. The Yolker is a sock if he has another ID here, my guess is not.

From Sol's ID, The Joke is a Returd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J28 said:

Time to bottom-line this bitch.  Fake liberals don't want illegal immigrants moved to sanctuary cities where they would be safe, welcomed, educated, and given good jobs because it's Trump's idea.  Therefore we can't agree it makes sense because we can't allow him a win.  Besides, we need those votes in red states.

Who are calling a bitch, bitch?  Conservatards should be hoisted on their own petard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
46 minutes ago, hermetic said:

by your logic (?) then they are breaking the law by releasing them anywhere.  I just kinda though that when you accused another poster of being ignorant of the law, you actually knew what the law was.  I guess not

Got it

You don't know either -AND- are unwilling to pay attention to people telling you shit you don't wanna hear.

Pretty safe to say that, if in your eyes I am ignorant of the law, I still know more about it than you or Saorsa.

actually, I was really hoping that you could point to a law that prevented the government from placing asylum seekers in cities where their path to permanency would be enhanced - as I would object to this type of law.  instead, you called them illegal immigrants and vaguely referred to some type of state laws that don't apply, and then some type of logic (?) that if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.  all with big zeros on cites.  so yeah, I don't really want to hear you opining on laws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

From Sol's ID, The Joke is a Returd.

Nope never flicked or banned, but I do appreciate the desperate need to shout down the opposing view.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hermetic said:

actually, I was really hoping that you could point to a law that prevented the government from placing asylum seekers in cities where their path to permanency would be enhanced - as I would object to this type of law.  instead, you called them illegal immigrants and vaguely referred to some type of state laws that don't apply, and then some type of logic (?) that if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.  all with big zeros on cites.  so yeah, I don't really want to hear you opining on laws

If you're in favor of sending them to the cities, then why would you object to the cities (and the states they're in) deciding what to do with them?

Kinda illogical, just sayin'

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, hasher said:

Who are calling a bitch, bitch?  Conservatards should be hoisted on their own petard.

 

78185FA1-E615-4497-902E-E044D59A9BFF.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Nope never flicked or banned, but I do appreciate the desperate need to shout down the opposing view.  

Me neither.

I can't even pick up any warning points, despite posting those pics of The Ed with a goat in a boat

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Nope never flicked or banned, but I do appreciate the desperate need to shout down the opposing view.  

Then you are a sock since you have made many references to pre Nov 2018.  What are you hiding? And your "opposing view" is as valid as a Hannity Rant or Alex Jones expose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing heard on the radio this morning:

Prior to Trump's right idea, the asylum seekers were usually taken to the nearest bus station and off they went. Most of them had a destination in mind where friends or family live. So sending them all to wherever just means they get another bus to where they really wanted to go :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

actually, I was really hoping that you could point to a law that prevented the government from placing asylum seekers in cities where their path to permanency would be enhanced - as I would object to this type of law.  instead, you called them illegal immigrants and vaguely referred to some type of state laws that don't apply, and then some type of logic (?) that if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.  all with big zeros on cites.  so yeah, I don't really want to hear you opining on laws

If you're in favor of sending them to the cities, then why would you object to the cities (and the states they're in) deciding what to do with them?

Kinda illogical, just sayin'

as long as those cities / states operate within the laws as they apply to asylum seekers, I'm ok with their actions.

try to keep in mind that these people are not illegal immigrants, so any law you try to make up that may apply to them should be worded correctly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, hermetic said:

as long as those cities / states operate within the laws as they apply to asylum seekers, I'm ok with their actions.

try to keep in mind that these people are not illegal immigrants, so any law you try to make up that may apply to them should be worded correctly

That's not what you said above, but, good.

And- it's not me that keeps trying to push them into the category of illegal immigrants, and transporting them around the country under detention.

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Another person who doesn’t understand “sanctuary”

oh well, it’s got 4 syllables. No trumptard can understand something that complex...

Another wanker with no sense of humour. 

But please, can no one think of the children. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Someone should think of a way to process their asylum claims while they remain in their country of origin. 

What?  He did?  Hmm. Never mind. 

We already have a process for that.  It works so far for Syrian, Somalian, Ethiopian, etc. refugees.  Why can't it also work the same way for the central Americans who think they have a legit asylum claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Funny thing heard on the radio this morning:

Prior to Trump's right idea, the asylum seekers were usually taken to the nearest bus station and off they went. Most of them had a destination in mind where friends or family live. So sending them all to wherever just means they get another bus to where they really wanted to go :rolleyes:

Why was that a good thing?  Please explain it to me, because I'm not seeing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shaggy said:

Good God...  You are a trumptard.  You sound exactly like the poor right wing hate mongers that are bitching and moaning that the liberal media/liberal majority on campuses and Liberal cities are not giving the right a fair shake.  You happily trashed every Obama/Clinton and left leaning policy back when the country was leaning right.  You happily took out liberal speakers and happily shamed libs for speaking out anywhere for frigging years and years.  Now, when it is time to take your medicine, when thousands of people are signing petitions to get you kicked out or banned from campuses because all you and your ilk do, is spread hate and fear in order to keep some semblance of power.  You are loosing elections in droves even though you thought you gerrymandered your way to winning regardless of the voter makeup, your boys at the top are getting indicted, you are actually backing these dumb and ultimately unjust immigration rules and somehow you wonder why people are  rising up and protesting your dumb asses.  Amazingly, you now cry foul.  Boo Fucking Hoo.  Go ahead and play the biggot, go ahead and back the dipshit in office..  You will loose and maybe, hopefully you will quit whining.  

You are one of the dumbest wankers around. You are so blinded with anger you find it impossible to actually read what anyone that disagrees with you says. The you just assign thoughts to them to prove you must be right. You have just proved what an ignorant cunt you are. 

I started commenting in a very tongue in cheek way to see what fuckwits would rise from their dark pool of ignorance. And come they did, you being, hopefully, the last yet most vitriolic. So blinded by your self belief that listening has gone out the window and been replaced by consummate hatred. 

Anyone who read my posts with a mind that had even a glimmer of light would have picked up on my piss take. But not you and your elk. Just blast away with all guns immediately. You are part of the problem. You complain about Trumptards, look in the mirror and you will see  Trumptard with a different colour. The extremes on both sides are noisily fucking their own country up. 

But at the end of the day, will no one think of the children. 

PS I am not an American, am ambivalent about Trump and Obama (they both have good and bad) and would probably be considered a libertarian. Unfortunately their are a lot claiming to libertarians when they are blinkered wankers who just give the rest of us a bad name. 

Mans please do remember the children. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Of COURSE its petty and vindictive!  I've never said otherwise.  Its what we've come to expect from this POS POTUS.  As I said before, I hope he gets his dick slapped for this obvious political move.  He's even unashamedly said that's he's doing it to punish these sanctuary cities. 

It doesn't change the fact that its a slightly humorous move for the sheer irony.  I can find something humorous and appalling at the same time.  Lighten up Francine.

As for "burning down democracy"..... I see it as quite the opposite.  This strengthens democracy.  Let me explain.....  My entire "Burn this bitch down" mantra has never been about burning down democracy or even the country.  Quite the contrary.  I want to burn down institutions, policies, entrenched practices, politicians and political parties that are cancerous to what America is and should be about.  We have been bumping along the bottom for a long time now, IMHO.  The corruption, the political games, the self-interests of politicians and the special interest influences that actually control our gov't are sort of known by the general population but tolerated because they (the pols and special interests) are very good at mostly keeping it below the radar and staying low key enough that the vast majority of the people who just want to go to work everyday and raise a family and don't have the time to pay attention largely ignore the shenanigans.  Its the proverbial frog in the pot of slowly simmering water.  By the time we get to boil, we don't even notice it because the heat has been turned up so gradually.  

Like it or not, what's great about Il Cheetolini is he's come in and turn the gas knob on the stove from 3 to 11.  He's Knocked all the chairs over in the kitchen and is throwing all the dishes against the wall and breaking them.  We are now finally starting to pay attention.  Congress has suddenly woken up and decided that maybe some oversight would be a good thing.  IOW, they are starting to do their FUCKING JOB!  The American people also are waking up (slowly) to the corruption and the ways in which the beautiful people can enrich themselves.  The more outrageous donnie acts, the more the veneer on our overall political institutions are laid bare.  I think he unwittingly is doing a great service to our country.  People are becoming more politically engaged and paying attention, the press is slowly waking up to the monster they created and their role and complicity in their bias in politics, and Congress is attempting to wrestle some control back from the executive and standing up to him.  Even some in the GOP are waking up to and pushing back to some of the more egregious stuff shitstain is trying to do.  In a roundabout way, cheeto is unifying congress and getting them to act in bi-partisan ways that even recently was unheard of.  

In addition, he has encouraged racists to come out of the shadows and be more blatant and open.  Good.  Its far easier to step on cockroaches in the light where you can see them than in a dark room.  

I think the outcome of this blackmark in our history will be that the voters are paying more attention to what is happening and becoming engaged in the political process and not just shrugging at the status quo.  The GOP in particular are going to suffer the most.  Good, they need a huge boot in their nut sack for being complete douchebags on several issues.  The evangelicals have been exposed as fucking hypocrites for supporting the pussy grabber above their values.  Its just win win all around.

I predict that one of the best things to come out of the Trump presidency after he leaves office in 2024 is that he immigration bombast will have forced the two parties finally to tackle comprehensive immigration reform once and for all.  I think we have no choice at this point but to come up with a true SOLution to this immigration crisis.  His over the top rhetoric and illegal actions will HAVE to be addressed with actual legislation to fix this problem.  The bright spot is that we can no longer continue to ignore the immigration problem.  In shitstain's fucked up way, he is inadvertently pushing us to work this out.  

So yeah, keep burning this bitch down!

@phillysailor, I'll take your silence and non-response as tacit approval of my points above.  Glad to see we are on the same page....  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

as long as those cities / states operate within the laws as they apply to asylum seekers, I'm ok with their actions.

try to keep in mind that these people are not illegal immigrants, so any law you try to make up that may apply to them should be worded correctly

Those cities/states operate within the laws. According to the courts anyway. Maybe not according to Miller Trump. Do you think the courts, or MIller Trump,  are correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why was that a good thing?  Please explain it to me, because I'm not seeing it.

why not let Family, friends and jobs pay for the asylum seeker? Why have gov't do it? Oh, wait, you're one of those Big Gov't guys. I keep forgetting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

why not let Family, friends and jobs pay for the asylum seeker? Why have gov't do it? Oh, wait, you're one of those Big Gov't guys. I keep forgetting.

Because those entities don't typically pay for illegal immigrants.  They will put their kids in school, demanding ESL courses requiring additional resources.  They will drive uninsured.  They will work under the table for wages that are not taxed.   Therefore we ALL pay for them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Because those entities don't typically pay for illegal immigrants.  They will put their kids in school, demanding ESL courses requiring additional resources.  They will drive uninsured.  They will work under the table for wages that are not taxed.   Therefore we ALL pay for them.  

You have lived a very sheltered life if you have not met immigrants who are American success stories and have brought over family who became equally successful.  

Why do you insist on a tenet  of hatred and mistrust (note, it's tenet, not tenant dumbshit). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Because those entities don't typically pay for illegal immigrants.  They will put their kids in school, demanding ESL courses requiring additional resources.  They will drive uninsured.  They will work under the table for wages that are not taxed.   Therefore we ALL pay for them.  

Golly gosh..how much IS the tax on $5 per hour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Golly gosh..how much IS the tax on $5 per hour?

for a legal worker who can't be claimed as a dependent and files as a single? Usually negative. The government pays people to work for shit wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

for a legal worker who can't be claimed as a dependent and files as a single? Usually negative. The government pays people to work for shit wages.

You, are full of shit!  If you have a negative tax liability, it becomes zero.  The government does not write you a check.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

You, are full of shit!  If you have a negative tax liability, it becomes zero.  The government does not write you a check.  

via the Earned Income Tax Credit the government writes you a check if your earnings are really low even if you have zero tax withholding and little tax liability. It's larger for people with children, another form of welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

via the Earned Income Tax Credit the government writes you a check if your earnings are really low even if you have zero tax withholding and little tax liability. It's larger for people with children, another form of welfare.

I stand corrected.  Apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gissie said:

Actually I was just taking the piss in a way that would be obvious to anyone that was actually reading my posts rather than just reacting to what they think I was saying. And not reading and thinking about what others say is not a nice trait. 

And my reply took the piss out of yours by judicial use of "same words, different target", something that would have been obvious to anyone that was actually reading my posts rather than just reacting to what they think I was saying. Not taking the time to read what others say is not a nice trait.

Still, do feel free to man up at any time and admit your "taking the piss" was nothing more than gutless deflection after you made shit up. I doubt you'll ever find the sack to do so, but I don't want you to ever feel it's too late to grow a spine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Aren't you all putting the cart before the horse??

Nope. I never stated where I wanted them settled or that they need to be settled in the US before their claims are processed. Princess Gissy was flinging shit about me not caring about the children getting settled, I was correcting him. Neither he, nor you, bothered to find out when I want them settled, where I want them settled, whether I think they should stay in the US in perpetuity, etc. You're just assuming a position because I think Trump is being a wanker and taking it from there.

Wouldn't be the first time you make up a position for me. Doubt it'll be your last. It's what you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Because those entities don't typically pay for illegal immigrants.  They will put their kids in school, demanding ESL courses requiring additional resources.  They will drive uninsured.  They will work under the table for wages that are not taxed.   Therefore we ALL pay for them.  

Meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And my reply took the piss out of yours by judicial use of "same words, different target", something that would have been obvious to anyone that was actually reading my posts rather than just reacting to what they think I was saying. Not taking the time to read what others say is not a nice trait.

Still, do feel free to man up at any time and admit your "taking the piss" was nothing more than gutless deflection after you made shit up. I doubt you'll ever find the sack to do so, but I don't want you to ever feel it's too late to grow a spine. 

The old judicious use trick. Hahaha, need to remember that for next time. 

As for the man up part, no problem. I hereby admit that all my posts in this thread have been to see who would see a piss take and move on and who would attack with the standard Trumptard shite. It may have been gutless to do so in such an obvious way I suppose, although that is more likely a view point of those that threw the shit at me without any thought for the children. 

Have a great day Bent, going to do some real fishing. Unfortunately without the children. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Because those entities don't typically pay for illegal immigrants.  They will put their kids in school, demanding ESL courses requiring additional resources.  They will drive uninsured.  They will work under the table for wages that are not taxed.   Therefore we ALL pay for them.  

This drivel, in spite of many analyses that who have made it clear that most undocumented workers use social security numbers which result in employer payments to SSS that are never paid out in benefits.  And, of course, the undocumented workers pay sales tax on everything they buy, gas tax and even property tax through their rent.   All in all, they are a net gain to society.  

But continue on with your drivel.  But you have to give up eating lettuce, avocados, grapes, apples, cherries, tomatoes.  And living in a new wood-framed house.  And having your neighbors yards mowed.  And being served at the local convenience store.  You won't miss those things.  Naaaah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

What does the Constitution say? Hmm, I sem to recall it's something about "reserved to the States, or to the People" so it looks very much like the shoe is on the other foot. Unless there is a law specifically allowing the Feds to do it, they can't

If you don't like the answer I've given so far, then you can take it as "I don't know." I'm not a lawyer and am not willing to spend a lot of time trying to google it.

-DSK

The constitution give handling of foreign affairs to the President.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Gissie said:

The old judicious use trick. Hahaha, need to remember that for next time. 

Best write it down. You know how your memory is in these twilight years of yours. ;) 

 

26 minutes ago, Gissie said:

As for the man up part, no problem. I hereby admit that all my posts in this thread have been to see who would see a piss take and move on and who would attack with the standard Trumptard shite. It may have been gutless to do so in such an obvious way I suppose, although that is more likely a view point of those that threw the shit at me without any thought for the children. 

Lying is always a gutless move and it speaks well to your rehabilitation that you can admit your doing so was such a spineless act. Bravo.

 

26 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Have a great day Bent, going to do some real fishing. Unfortunately without the children. 

Enjoy. Better than a day in the office... and still, thinking of the children, I am glad you're leaving them ashore. ;) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

The constitution give handling of foreign affairs to the President.

Indeed. Now, would dropping people off into specific cities of specific states, given they are legally inside the country, be a domestic or foreign affair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

What does the Constitution say? Hmm, I sem to recall it's something about "reserved to the States, or to the People" so it looks very much like the shoe is on the other foot. Unless there is a law specifically allowing the Feds to do it, they can't

If you don't like the answer I've given so far, then you can take it as "I don't know." I'm not a lawyer and am not willing to spend a lot of time trying to google it.

 

The constitution give handling of foreign affairs to the President.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

Yes indeed.

Proving what, exactly? This is another one of your non-sequiturs, are you doing it on purpose or are you so fuckin' dumb that you think immigration policy is in any way at all related to "foreign affairs"?

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Left Shift said:

But continue on with your drivel.  But you have to give up eating lettuce, avocados, grapes, apples, cherries, tomatoes.  And living in a new wood-framed house.  And having your neighbors yards mowed.  And being served at the local convenience store.  You won't miss those things.  Naaaah.

It's a funny thing. In Australia we seem to manage all those things without the hordes of undocumented workers that you seem to think are necessary for life as you know it.

I wonder why that is.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

It's a funny thing. In Australia we seem to manage all those things without the hordes of undocumented workers that you seem to think are necessary for life as you know it.

I wonder why that is.....

FKT

because we use backpackers and overseas students to work under award?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

because we use backpackers and overseas students to work under award?

Because you seem to pay a living wage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

Because you seem to pay a living wage?

We have our problems with arseholes exploiting those here on student visa's and tourist visa'a too. Those that don't know their rights. But I'm just having a dig at FWT making sweeping statements. As a rule you are correct. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why was that a good thing?  Please explain it to me, because I'm not seeing it.

Who said it was good? I said it was funny.

BEFORE:

They go to the bus station and get a bus to Mayberry.

AFTER:

They get sent to San Francisco, go to the bus station, and go to Mayberry :rolleyes:

Did someone think the local town and city governments were going to build prisons and keep them all there in one spot :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Yes indeed.

Proving what, exactly? This is another one of your non-sequiturs, are you doing it on purpose or are you so fuckin' dumb that you think immigration policy is in any way at all related to "foreign affairs"?

-DSK

 

You seem to be intentionally oblivious, ignorant, or completely unaware that it is the Department of State (part of the executive branch) which deals with entry to the US through the use of Visa programs and the issuance of various documents such as passports and residency permits.

They do so under policies enacted in law by the Congress of the United States and established as regulation by the Department pursuant to those laws.

They are enforced by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the US Customs and Border Protection agencies which are operated by the Department of Homeland Security.

Perhaps Nancy NIMBY should take a trip to the existing wall on the California border for a photo op shouting "MR TRUMP; TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!!!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

You seem to be intentionally oblivious, ignorant, or completely unaware that it is the Department of State (part of the executive branch) which deals with entry to the US .........

 

Yeah

That doesn't make it "foreign policy"

You could just say, oops...... but no, keep showing your ass. It seems to be all ya got

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Left Shift said:

This drivel, in spite of many analyses that who have made it clear that most undocumented workers use social security numbers which result in employer payments to SSS that are never paid out in benefits.  And, of course, the undocumented workers pay sales tax on everything they buy, gas tax and even property tax through their rent.   All in all, they are a net gain to society.  

But continue on with your drivel.  But you have to give up eating lettuce, avocados, grapes, apples, cherries, tomatoes.  And living in a new wood-framed house.  And having your neighbors yards mowed.  And being served at the local convenience store.  You won't miss those things.  Naaaah.

He’s a mercenary living in a Middle East city. He won’t do without anything and can watch the bitch burn from afar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

because we use backpackers and overseas students to work under award?

And massively fine the employers when they're caught......

You can always find corner cases and I think those employers should be jumped on hard.

I lived in Arizona for a while, no way is there anywhere in Australia even close regardless of how you want to include backpackers et al.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

You have lived a very sheltered life if you have not met immigrants who are American success stories and have brought over family who became equally successful.  

Why do you insist on a tenet  of hatred and mistrust (note, it's tenet, not tenant dumbshit). 

I have met many immigrants who are success stories and I don't hate or mistrust them.  I welcome immigrants who come to the country legally and abide by our laws.  

I do not want people to sneak here over the rio grande or overstay their visa.  Sorry, but that is against the law.  Don't like it?  Then change the fucking law!  

I have absolutely NOTHING against legal immigrants and want more of them.  I want our stupid immigration laws changed so that it is easier to get more of them here legally and more efficiently.  In the meantime, until it is fixed - I am not willing to continue to look the other way anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Who said it was good? I said it was funny.

BEFORE:

They go to the bus station and get a bus to Mayberry.

AFTER:

They get sent to San Francisco, go to the bus station, and go to Mayberry :rolleyes:

Did someone think the local town and city governments were going to build prisons and keep them all there in one spot :lol:

You do realize you're making the case for the wall, right?  Just saying.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Left Shift said:
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Because those entities don't typically pay for illegal immigrants.  They will put their kids in school, demanding ESL courses requiring additional resources.  They will drive uninsured.  They will work under the table for wages that are not taxed.   Therefore we ALL pay for them.  

This drivel, in spite of many analyses that who have made it clear that most undocumented workers use social security numbers which result in employer payments to SSS that are never paid out in benefits.  And, of course, the undocumented workers pay sales tax on everything they buy, gas tax and even property tax through their rent.   All in all, they are a net gain to society.  

But continue on with your drivel.  But you have to give up eating lettuce, avocados, grapes, apples, cherries, tomatoes.  And living in a new wood-framed house.  And having your neighbors yards mowed.  And being served at the local convenience store.  You won't miss those things.  Naaaah.

Why would I have to give up any of that???  Are you saying there is no possible way to hire people to do that legally without them having to sneak across the border in the dead of night to get here to pick lettuce?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why would I have to give up any of that???  Are you saying there is no possible way to hire people to do that legally without them having to sneak across the border in the dead of night to get here to pick lettuce?  

I think Jeff is right on this one.  Undocumented labor as a requirement for cheep produce is a terrible defense of the immigration policy status quo.  If the true cost of lettuce is $10 / head without some poor undocumented bastard hiding from law enforcement in shitty housing away from his family for years, then that's what we should pay.  Let $20 dollar side salads be the catalyst to force change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

I think Jeff is right on this one.  Undocumented labor as a requirement for cheep produce is a terrible defense of the immigration policy status quo.  If the true cost of lettuce is $10 / head without some poor undocumented bastard hiding from law enforcement in shitty housing away from his family for years, then that's what we should pay.  Let $20 dollar side salads be the catalyst to force change.

But, but, but, the guy who slaps that lettuce on a burger needs $15 to raise a family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Yeah

That doesn't make it "foreign policy"

You could just say, oops...... but no, keep showing your ass. It seems to be all ya got

-DSK

I used the word foreign affairs not policy.  Affairs implies actual action in regard to dealing with foreigners, policy just what someone would like.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why would I have to give up any of that???  Are you saying there is no possible way to hire people to do that legally without them having to sneak across the border in the dead of night to get here to pick lettuce?  

Pretty much.  Under the current idiots running immigration policy.  

Hard hard work for low pay doesn’t attract America’s work force.  So we need migrants.

Now if we had non-racists making reasonable arrangements for temporary migration and permanent immigration we might find a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You do realize you're making the case for the wall, right?  Just saying.....

No I am not. Asylum seekers <> illegal farmhands. Asylum seekers walk right up to the border crossing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

I think Jeff is right on this one.  Undocumented labor as a requirement for cheep produce is a terrible defense of the immigration policy status quo.  If the true cost of lettuce is $10 / head without some poor undocumented bastard hiding from law enforcement in shitty housing away from his family for years, then that's what we should pay.  Let $20 dollar side salads be the catalyst to force change.

The change would be importing lettuce vs. importing workers :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Raz'r said:
16 hours ago, hermetic said:

as long as those cities / states operate within the laws as they apply to asylum seekers, I'm ok with their actions.

try to keep in mind that these people are not illegal immigrants, so any law you try to make up that may apply to them should be worded correctly

Those cities/states operate within the laws. According to the courts anyway. Maybe not according to Miller Trump. Do you think the courts, or MIller Trump,  are correct?

re-read the first line of my post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

I used the word foreign affairs not policy.  Affairs implies actual action in regard to dealing with foreigners, policy just what someone would like.

 

If you'd said "foreignER affairs" you'd be closer but still not correct.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

If you'd said "foreignER affairs" you'd be closer but still not correct.

-DSK

Perhaps you could cite current US federal law instead of your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Perhaps you could cite current US federal law instead of your opinion.

Perhaps you could check who else has already given opinions publicly, and see if they know.

You spout stupid shit and you expect to be spoon-fed while you argue.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Perhaps you could check who else has already given opinions publicly, and see if they know.

You spout stupid shit and you expect to be spoon-fed while you argue.

-DSK

So, you got nuthin' to base your bullshit on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

So, you got nuthin' to base your bullshit on.

Son, if you would open a book you might become informed.  It is not likely, but a possibility. Until then, stay in the sand box.  Later, you may graduate to mud pies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hasher said:

Son, if you would open a book you might become informed.  It is not likely, but a possibility. Until then, stay in the sand box.  Later, you may graduate to mud pies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

So, you got nuthin' to base your bullshit on.

nuthin' 'n bullshit..... right, that must be why DHS Sec'y Neilsen resigned

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

nuthin' 'n bullshit..... right, that must be why DHS Sec'y Neilsen resigned

-DSK

Here's what I got straight from US Customs and Immigration

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/affirmative-asylum-process

 

There is a support center in San Franciscohttps://egov.uscis.gov/office-locator/#/ascprofile/CA/San Francisco/XTD 

San Francisco, CA - Application Support Center

Office Address:

Office Days/Hours:

Monday

  8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Tuesday

  8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday

  8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Thursday

  8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Friday

  8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Saturday

  Closed

Sunday

  Closed

Trump is just offering them a free ride.

Now, when are you going to come up with a few actual cites on law or process.

So far, you have failed completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

nuthin' 'n bullshit..... right, that must be why DHS Sec'y Neilsen resigned

 

Here's what I got straight from US Customs and Immigration

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/affirmative-asylum-process

 

There is a support center in San Franciscohttps://egov.uscis.gov/office-locator/#/ascprofile/CA/San Francisco/XTD 

San Francisco, CA - Application Support Center

Office Address:

Office Days/Hours:

Monday

  8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Tuesday

  8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday

  8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Thursday

  8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Friday

  8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Saturday

  Closed

Sunday

  Closed

Trump is just offering them a free ride.

Now, when are you going to come up with a few actual cites on law or process.

So far, you have failed completely.

 

So, you're saying that DHS Sec'y Neilsen resigned because the SanFran asylum office is closed on weekends?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:
7 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I think Jeff is right on this one.  Undocumented labor as a requirement for cheep produce is a terrible defense of the immigration policy status quo.  If the true cost of lettuce is $10 / head without some poor undocumented bastard hiding from law enforcement in shitty housing away from his family for years, then that's what we should pay.  Let $20 dollar side salads be the catalyst to force change.

The change would be importing lettuce vs. importing workers :rolleyes:

Its interesting..... I think we're starting to get to the core of the issue here.  It seems obvious there are some, many in fact, who deliberately want to perpetuate ILLEGAL immigration just to keep prices low on many commodities and services.  You people should be seriously fucking ashamed of yourselves.

I still maintain that sensible, efficient and fast LEGAL immigration can achieve the same thing.  There is no reason we can't have temporary migrant workers who come to pick lettuce and then go home.  To come here and build houses and go home.  To come here and stay and work with no specific promise of citizenship.  For some to then stay even longer and get citizenship eventually.  There is no reason we can't still have cheap labor to do the jobs that spoiled shit Americans on the dole won't do, but to do it in a controlled and legal manner.  

Those of you who want to maintain the status quo of looking the other way wrt to illegals coming here, GFY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Who said it was good? I said it was funny.

BEFORE:

They go to the bus station and get a bus to Mayberry.

AFTER:

They get sent to San Francisco, go to the bus station, and go to Mayberry :rolleyes:

Did someone think the local town and city governments were going to build prisons and keep them all there in one spot :lol:

I don't think they should be going anywhere until they are approved for asylum entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its interesting..... I think we're starting to get to the core of the issue here.  It seems obvious there are some, many in fact, who deliberately want to perpetuate ILLEGAL immigration just to keep prices low on many commodities and services.  You people should be seriously fucking ashamed of yourselves.

I still maintain that sensible, efficient and fast LEGAL immigration can achieve the same thing.  There is no reason we can't have temporary migrant workers who come to pick lettuce and then go home.  To come here and build houses and go home.  To come here and stay and work with no specific promise of citizenship.  For some to then stay even longer and get citizenship eventually.  There is no reason we can't still have cheap labor to do the jobs that spoiled shit Americans on the dole won't do, but to do it in a controlled and legal manner.  

Those of you who want to maintain the status quo of looking the other way wrt to illegals coming here, GFY!

Let's see. Jeff blames the illegal immigrants for coming here to work. Check. He blames consumers for wanting low prices. Check. He blames employers for hiring illegals. Check. Correction, for some reason, Jeff doesn't blame employers for hiring illegals. Must be an oversight. I can't think of any other reason that our fastidious friend would miss such an obvious connection.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:
12 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its interesting..... I think we're starting to get to the core of the issue here.  It seems obvious there are some, many in fact, who deliberately want to perpetuate ILLEGAL immigration just to keep prices low on many commodities and services.  You people should be seriously fucking ashamed of yourselves.

I still maintain that sensible, efficient and fast LEGAL immigration can achieve the same thing.  There is no reason we can't have temporary migrant workers who come to pick lettuce and then go home.  To come here and build houses and go home.  To come here and stay and work with no specific promise of citizenship.  For some to then stay even longer and get citizenship eventually.  There is no reason we can't still have cheap labor to do the jobs that spoiled shit Americans on the dole won't do, but to do it in a controlled and legal manner.  

Those of you who want to maintain the status quo of looking the other way wrt to illegals coming here, GFY!

Let's see. Jeff blames the illegal immigrants for coming here to work. Check. He blames consumers for wanting low prices. Check. He blames employers for hiring illegals. Check. Correction, for some reason, Jeff doesn't blame employers for hiring illegals. Must be an oversight. I can't think of any other reason that our fastidious friend would miss such an obvious connection.

Fuck off and stop being such a cunt.  I have numerous times here often and loudly said that employers should be arrested, perp-walked, fined, jailed and beaten for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.  I have often and loudly said that employers are at the root of this problem.  Start making examples of them and this immigration issue would get solved overnight.  Oh yeah, and e-verify.  Cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, and e-verify. Your boy Shitstain is all over arresting employers for violating e-verify.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/e-team/ice-arrests-workers-with-no-sign-of-employers-going-to-court-for-hiring-illegal-immigrants

Maybe, just maybe, this illegal alien roundup is just SoCon red meat to toss around for the elk. It's a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Oh yeah, and e-verify. Your boy Shitstain is all over arresting employers for violating e-verify.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/e-team/ice-arrests-workers-with-no-sign-of-employers-going-to-court-for-hiring-illegal-immigrants

Have I ever given you the impression that I think boy shitstain cares about actually fixing the immigration issue??? 

"NO" is the correct answer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Fuck off and stop being such a cunt.  I have numerous times here often and loudly said that employers should be arrested, perp-walked, fined, jailed and beaten for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.  I have often and loudly said that employers are at the root of this problem.  Start making examples of them and this immigration issue would get solved overnight.  Oh yeah, and e-verify.  Cunt.

The toilet seat didn't want to acknowledge that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Have I ever given you the impression that I think boy shitstain cares about actually fixing the immigration issue??? 

"NO" is the correct answer.  

Which bill before congress would '"fix the immigration issue"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is there to acknowledge in Jeffreaux's bullshit? It's just you clowns claiming stupid shit and pretending you don't stink. Y'all will lie until you die. It's who you are. 

Now google up something irrelevant soreass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I have met many immigrants who are success stories and I don't hate or mistrust them.  I welcome immigrants who come to the country legally and abide by our laws.  

I do not want people to sneak here over the rio grande or overstay their visa.  Sorry, but that is against the law.  Don't like it?  Then change the fucking law!  

I have absolutely NOTHING against legal immigrants and want more of them.  I want our stupid immigration laws changed so that it is easier to get more of them here legally and more efficiently.  In the meantime, until it is fixed - I am not willing to continue to look the other way anymore.

Most of the people overstaying their visa fly in.asylum seekers? Not illegal. Sorry to burst your bubble but you’ve been on a low-info rampage lately. Quite sad really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Most of the people overstaying their visa fly in.asylum seekers? Not illegal. Sorry to burst your bubble but you’ve been on a low-info rampage lately. Quite sad really. 

Asylum seekers are if they don't show up for their court date.

There are criteria for being granted asylum.  Granted is different than seeking.

Perhaps you missed it

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/affirmative-asylum-process

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 12:55 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

And here we've the sock puppet doing the victory lap based on PR spin.

Trump said stupid, possibly illegal, certainly nasty shit. People got mad. Trump wins.

There's no bottom for Trumpalos.

Every city should become a sanctuary city and then Dems wouldn’t want to send illegals there.  They want to send them to red states and cities to gain votes. It’s very obvious.

-or-

they truly don’t want them at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites