Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The President will institute a nation wide amnesty of illegals.

Good bye Borders, Constitution.

Say hello to early stages of a North American Union.

I think you are exaggerating.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you are exaggerating.

I just watched Megan Kelly go through 15-20 clips of him the past 6 years saying exactly the tone of "I will not go at this alone, or write an executive order for immigration reform."

Now he has completely lied.

Its a complete defiance of the constitution. This last election was a complete referendum against this kind of policy.

Sometimes politics is a game of poker. Lets see what he does.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sometimes politics is a game of poker. Lets see what he does.

Brother I am deeply concerned for this country.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The President will institute a nation wide amnesty of illegals.

Good bye Borders, Constitution.

Say hello to early stages of a North American Union.
Alarmism at its finest.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Alarmism at its finest.

You are like type of people Gruber and Obama like. Uniformed and Uneducated on current events.

Truth is, this is exactly what is happening and you don't even know it, but you will tomorrow.

Also if you knew anything about the Constitution you would know that it is congress job.

"The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...."

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4

And if you knew anything about legal wording, you'd know that giving amnesty is not 'establishing a uniform rule of naturalization.' Quite the opposite, it's a one-time exception to the rule, not unlike the president pardoning a prisoner for a federal crime. It doesn't mean the law no longer applies, just that the president lifted the penalty of said law for one person.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You are like type of people Gruber and Obama like. Uniformed and Uneducated on current events.

Truth is, this is exactly what is happening and you don't even know it, but you will tomorrow.
Keep thinking that.

I'm well informed on what's going on.

I understand that the current immigration policy is unsustainable and true enforcement of current laws would be logistically impossible, so amnesty in some form is a necessity.

However, amnesty does not mean a North American Union. That's beyond ridiculous. Why would America want to create a North American Union anyhow? Who the Hell in Washington do you think wants open borders with Mexico? No one, that's who. No one wants Mexico's baggage. The amnesty move is simply about coming to terms with reality and seeing that there are too many illegal immigrants to get rid of.

Don't come in here with your conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, Fox News, Glenn Beck, build-a-wall-around-America bullshit and call other people misinformed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Keep thinking that.

I'm well informed on what's going on.

I understand that the current immigration policy is unsustainable and true enforcement of current laws would be logistically impossible, so amnesty in some form is a necessity.

However, amnesty does not mean a North American Union. That's beyond ridiculous. Why would America want to create a North American Union anyhow? Who the Hell in Washington do you think wants open borders with Mexico? No one, that's who. No one wants Mexico's baggage. The amnesty move is simply about coming to terms with reality and seeing that there are too many illegal immigrants to get rid of.

Don't come in here with your conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, Fox News, Glenn Beck, build-a-wall-around-America bullshit and call other people misinformed.

Ur getting riled up over some extra harmless add on I put in the OP. Are you unable to notice the difference between serious and not serious? If you cannot, I apologize.

The point is its not Up to the President to make this decsion. Its congressional. And the new congress does not get sworn into office until January.

You actually are not that informed on this matter, if you were, you would know it breaks constitutional law.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Ur getting riled up over some extra harmless add on I put in the OP.

The point is its not Up to the President to make this decsion. Its congressional. And the new congress does not get sworn into office until January.
Am I supposed to ignore when you say something dumb?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And if you knew anything about legal wording, you'd know that giving amnesty is not 'establishing a uniform rule of naturalization.'

Incorrect.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Am I supposed to ignore when you say something dumb?

You say things that I don't think are smart all the time, do I call you dumb?

Yeah, sorry, TI, I have to apologize for my behavior in this thread.

I was super tired and stressed from a long day of grading papers, but that doesn't excuse my tone and attitude.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah, sorry, TI, I have to apologize for my behavior in this thread.

I was super tired and stressed from a long day of grading papers, but that doesn't excuse my tone and attitude.

You know what I really appreciate post this because I had a bad day today and saw you responded and really didn't want to go at it. So thank you, and thank you.

I saw the speech, and it was a good speech, but I didn't believe the president.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I saw the speech, and it was a good speech, but I didn't believe the president.

Heartfelt but political bullshit.

He blames republicans for not passing a bill!!!

Reid wont allow any bills to be brought before the senate even if there was one!

So granting citizenship to five million people who snuck in is enforcing a country's immigration laws how? Way I see it, millions more will show up and hope Obama gives them citizenship too.

He had the house, and senate in 2009 and 2010 and did nothing about this now, he could have passed the bill then, yet he did nothing. Now he blames republicans. Go figure.

Now he quoting scripture from the bible to sell this to the American people.

More then half of Central American immigrants on welfare

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/08/Report-Central-American-Immigrants-Use-Welfare-at-High-Rate

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Heartfelt but political bullshit.

He blames republicans for not passing a bill!!!

Reid wont allow any bills to be brought before the senate even if there was one!

Perhaps more golf would help.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I just watched Megan Kelly

http://images.killermovies.com/forums/customsmilies/mmm.gif

Originally posted by Nemesis X
So granting citizenship to five million people who snuck in is enforcing a country's immigration laws how?It isn't, which is the point. Obama isn't trying to enforce our immigration laws, he's admitting that our immigration laws are retarded and impossible to enforce, and is "cleaning the slate" so to speak while setting up the new laws.

Millions will, but not anymore then already have been. That's the point. It is not possible to prevent illegal immigrants from pouring into the country- there's literally nothing we can do to prevent that from happening, and trying to do so is just wasting money and overwhelming our already stretched thin customs agents, which in turn is resulting in more illegals slipping past us.

So instead, priority is being shifted to cracking down on those immigrants who are or were criminals and deporting them, while making it easier for those who aren't dickbags to get official jobs and do things that benefit us all, like pay taxes.

Originally posted by Lestov16
http://images.killermovies.com/forums/customsmilies/mmm.gif

Can someone explain Obama "Blame the Republicans" stance on immigration.

Facts: Democrats had the 3 branches of the government for more then 4 years and failed to act on anything.

Never once did a bill get passed by the house and ratified by the Senate or signed by the President.

How is it the Republicans fault again?

#boldfacelie

Originally posted by Tzeentch
So instead, priority is being shifted to cracking down on those immigrants who are or were criminals and deporting them, while making it easier for those who aren't dickbags to get official jobs and do things that benefit us all, like pay taxes.

This, right here.

Think of all the under the table money now being over the table and the income tax it will generate. California alone can potentially generate high-end millions. Granted, business owners who take advantage of illegals by paying them a pittance will be upset, but who the **** cares what they think.

Rob respond please

I missed the speech where "Obama blamed Republicans" and the reason. So I can't comment.

6Q_Xk66gsRU

so at my temp job there's like one black dude who works with us.. well actually there's two but the other one seems white really. and i am friends with this one black dude cause really he's one of the only smart and chill people there. so this morning we were talking about some random bullshit and our boss comes up to us out of nowhere and says to the black dude "i'm sorry but someone's gotta take a gun and go shoot obama, letting all these mexicans in..." and then walks off. and we both stand there laughing at him cause he thought he apparently thought any random black person you see is the obama embassy or some shit.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so at my temp job there's like one black dude who works with us.. well actually there's two but the other one seems white really. and i am friends with this one black dude cause really he's one of the only smart and chill people there. so this morning we were talking about some random bullshit and our boss comes up to us out of nowhere and says to the black dude "i'm sorry but someone's gotta take a gun and go shoot obama, letting all these mexicans in..." and then walks off. and we both stand there laughing at him cause he thought he apparently thought any random black person you see is the obama embassy or some shit.

That's outrageous.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Can someone explain Obama "Blame the Republicans" stance on immigration.

Facts: Democrats had the 3 branches of the government for more then 4 years and failed to act on anything.

Never once did a bill get passed by the house and ratified by the Senate or signed by the President.

How is it the Republicans fault again?

#boldfacelie

This is an article from a year ago explaining it:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster

This is not a sudden change in the Democratic party, everyone that's critical of the political farce the far right puts on has for years been talking about how the Republicans have misused and abused filibusters to force their minority view through, and made it almost impossible for Obama to do anything without executive orders.

Originally posted by Bardock42
This is an article from a year ago explaining it:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster

This is not a sudden change in the Democratic party, everyone that's critical of the political farce the far right puts on has for years been talking about how the Republicans have misused and abused filibusters to force their minority view through, and made it almost impossible for Obama to do anything without executive orders.
Exactly. Republicans sowed the wind and are now reaping the hurricane.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...This is not a sudden change in the Democratic party, everyone that's critical of the political farce the far right puts on has for years been talking about how the Republicans have misused and abused filibusters to force their minority view through, and made it almost impossible for Obama to do anything without executive orders.

That completely ignores the fact that the Democrats did the exact same thing during the Bush presidency. Both parties do the same thing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That completely ignores the fact that the Democrats did the exact same thing during the Bush presidency. Both parties do the same thing.

Considerably less. Republicans have escalated it to a point that there is complete inaction. They are solely to blame for the lack of progress over the last 6 years.

Originally posted by Bardock42
This is an article from a year ago explaining it:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster

This is not a sudden change in the Democratic party, everyone that's critical of the political farce the far right puts on has for years been talking about how the Republicans have misused and abused filibusters to force their minority view through, and made it almost impossible for Obama to do anything without executive orders.

Oh what the fck is this shit Marius???

Facts prove otherwise Dems sat on there ass for 4 years while in complete power!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Considerably less. Republicans have escalated it to a point that there is complete inaction. They are solely to blame for the lack of progress over the last 6 years.

No, the dems had a lot to do with that. Your bias is showing.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Exactly. Republicans sowed the wind and are now reaping the hurricane.

So you want to ignore that they had all three branches of government and didn't pass anything?

Republicans had zero power, dems had it all.

Obama is doing what he wants now as a lame duck to prove he still has power for the next two months.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, the dems had a lot to do with that. Your bias is showing.
The Democrats are to blame for being pushovers, that never fight for their alleged believes. They are weak, and unable or unwilling to stand up to Republicans. But the fact that nothing was passed, that almost nothing changed is due to Republican actions.

Harry Reid would never bring any bill the House sent over for the last two years from the house. He prevented any and every bill to vote.

I have 2 points and they contradict each other:


1. I am all for "illegal" immigration as long as the immigrants pay honest taxes while here and their employers employ them honestly.

2. I am against direct income taxes and think it should be abolished.


Of course, in #1, they are not fully illegal immigrants if they pay taxes and are working for honest employers. They may be illegal in some ways but that means they would have to be legal in others.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The Democrats are to blame for being pushovers, that never fight for their alleged believes. They are weak, and unable or unwilling to stand up to Republicans. But the fact that nothing was passed, that almost nothing changed is due to Republican actions.

hysterical

Look up Harry Reid.

Bardock42, the problem is (from my point of view) You want the Democrats to win. To me, that is just as bad as wanting the Republicans to win. I want them both to loose.

I don't want the Democrats to win, I view them as the lesser of two evils, but I am by no means a fan.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't want the Democrats to win, I view them as the lesser of two evils, but I am by no means a fan.

Oh my! They are NOT the lesser of two evils. The only "lesser of two evils" is an independent.

Independents are a mixed bag. Obviously they can be better, but they can also be worse than any Democrat or Republican.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Independents are a mixed bag. Obviously they can be better, but they can also be worse than any Democrat or Republican.

But they don't have the gang mentality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Independents are a mixed bag. Obviously they can be better, but they can also be worse than any Democrat or Republican.

My ignorance knows no bounds when it comes to the current or up and coming Independents in office. Did you have examples from both angles you mentioned, here?

it seems like the whole country's real mentality is hate whoever the president is. maybe cause i was a teenager in bush years that shaped my perspective. so i thought bush must really suck guess i better be a democrat. now i see obama and it's the same shit. if i was a teenager now i'd probably assume the democrats suck so i better be a republican. and then when they win the office back everyone will most likely hate that guy as well. cause really our empire peaked and is fading and shit's a little ****ed up so the public needs a face to scream at.

I think Bush was a shitty president in a lot of areas and an okay-to-good president in other areas, some of them very surprising.

For instance, up until Obama he was the president with the highest number of minority appointments, surpassing even Clinton and Carter. He was also the president who more than any other (including Obama, somewhat strangely) promoted aid to Africa. In many African countries he's still a very popular figure. He's also possibly culpable for war crimes, but that's another matter...

As for Obama, he's a decent president who was hyped up so immensely on his election that he couldn't do anything but disappoint. He's also facing a retardedly stubborn opposition who's made a mission out of ensuring that they sabotage his political projects even if it means paralyzing the government as a whole.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oh my! They are NOT the lesser of two evils. The only "lesser of two evils" is an independent.
'Independent' can mean a lot of things. A lot of racebaiters and borderline Neo-Nazis register and run for office as independents because the two parties won't touch them with a thousand foot pole.

There are third parties, some of which (like the Green Party) are very attractive, but I don't know if those count as independents.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it seems like the whole country's real mentality is hate whoever the president is. maybe cause i was a teenager in bush years that shaped my perspective. so i thought bush must really suck guess i better be a democrat. now i see obama and it's the same shit. if i was a teenager now i'd probably assume the democrats suck so i better be a republican. and then when they win the office back everyone will most likely hate that guy as well. cause really our empire peaked and is fading and shit's a little ****ed up so the public needs a face to scream at.

You nailed it! Now all the extremists will start calling you names.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think Bush was a shitty president in a lot of areas and an okay-to-good president in other areas, some of them very surprising.

For instance, up until Obama he was the president with the highest number of minority appointments, surpassing even Clinton and Carter. He was also the president who more than any other (including Obama, somewhat strangely) promoted aid to Africa. In many African countries he's still a very popular figure. He's also possibly culpable for war crimes, but that's another matter...

As for Obama, he's a decent president who was hyped up so immensely on his election that he couldn't do anything but disappoint. He's also facing a retardedly stubborn opposition who's made a mission out of ensuring that they sabotage his political projects even if it means paralyzing the government as a whole. yea but it seems like the bickering will continue like that. even if the republicans put a decent dude in charge people will be pissed off about how the party carried their shit before and start whining about every little thing he does out of spite for the obama hate. i feel like a lot of the obama hate was revenge hate from the bush era. cause yea he did have some flaws but there were a lot of dumb loudmouth mother****ers who just loved to scream **** bush. it's really starting to feel like yankee stadium when the redsox are playing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oh my! They are NOT the lesser of two evils. The only "lesser of two evils" is an independent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Independents are a mixed bag. Obviously they can be better, but they can also be worse than any Democrat or Republican.

Bardock42, what he's saying is that they are very similar (GOP and Democrat). He groups them as one and independents as another. He views the Independents as the lesser of two evils.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
hysterical

Look up Harry Reid.

I said this earlier, Link ignored it

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Harry Reid would never bring any bill the House sent over for the last two years from the house. He prevented any and every bill to vote.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Bardock42, what he's saying is that they are very similar (GOP and Democrat). He groups them as one and independents as another. He views the Independents as the lesser of two evils.

I know that Shakya is grouping Republicans and Democrats as one and Independents as another. I obviously disagree, as I made clear in the post that Shakya replied to.

Independents, like Omega Vision said, is a term that can encompass virtually any POV, the label alone says nothing about the politics of the person (unlike Democrat or Republican, which gives a rough idea). As such they can be horrible neo-nazis, staunch libertarians or very progressive people.

Taking recent examples, and my personal politics, for example, I quite like Bernie Sanders, while I think Joe Liebermann is an *******.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know that Shakya is grouping Republicans and Democrats as one and Independents as another. I obviously disagree, as I made clear in the post that Shakya replied to.

Independents, like Omega Vision said, is a term that can encompass virtually any POV, the label alone says nothing about the politics of the person (unlike Democrat or Republican, which gives a rough idea). As such they can be horrible neo-nazis, staunch libertarians or very progressive people.


Well...uh...

Hmm.


Based on what you're saying, the same thing on varaibility that you say applies to Independents also applies to the GOP and Democrats:


http://classroom.synonym.com/types-democrats-11944.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)



Originally posted by Bardock42
Taking recent examples, and my personal politics, for example, I quite like Bernie Sanders, while I think Joe Liebermann is an *******.

I'm familiar with the *sshole but not so much Bernie. I'll take a look. Thanks for this.

It's not quite the same. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party both have platforms and leadership. As such it can be politically classed as a subset of all political opinion. We know about where Republicans stand (of course there are outliers and people that assume the mantle of Republican that actually aren't in line with the views of the party as a whole). Independent on the other hand has no such platform or leadership. The label independent is open to absolutely anyone regardless of political view.

i like what my favorite right wing troll ann coulter had to say about independents.. something along the lines of "they're idiots who can't figure out how to make up their minds."

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not quite the same. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party both have platforms and leadership. As such it can be politically classed as a subset of all political opinion. We know about where Republicans stand (of course there are outliers and people that assume the mantle of Republican that actually aren't in line with the views of the party as a whole). Independent on the other hand has no such platform or leadership. The label independent is open to absolutely anyone regardless of political view.

Sense the platforms and leaders of both parties are a big fat lie, it is better to not have parties and have to look at each person individually. That is why an independent is better then both parties.

This:

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee289/GFO106/busted2.jpg

Now Obama is opening up Social Security and Medicare to illegals given amnesty.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Now Obama is opening up Social Security and Medicare to illegals given amnesty.
Well, if they pay taxes...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is why an independent is better then both parties.
Any independent?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, if they pay taxes...

Except the ones that here will put in way less then what they will receive creating even a bigger deficit the programs designed for legal Americans who have been working their whole life. Majority of these illegals are over the age of 50 as it is and will barley put anything into the system versus what they will be getting out.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Except the ones that here will put in way less then what they will receive creating even a bigger deficit the programs designed for legal Americans who have been working their whole life. Majority of these illegals are over the age of 50 as it is and will barley put anything into the system versus what they will be getting out.

So I googled, this is what I found:

As of 2012

under 18 years 580,000 530,000 1,120,000 10%
18-24 years 880,000 540,000 1,410,000 12%
25-34 years 2,050,000 1,600,000 3,660,000 32%
35-44 years 1,750,000 1,570,000 3,320,000 29%
45-54 years 650,000 750,000 1,400,000 12%
55 years + 190,000 330,000 520,000 5%
Total (all ages) 6,100,000 5,330,000 11,430,000 100%

So you see, the largest illegal age demographic is the 25-34, second being 35-44. Combined the 25-44 group makes up well over half.

Over 50 totals around 11%

What? TI's "stats" and "facts" wrong? INCONCEIVABLE!!!

Well I guess that hot ***** Megan Kelly lied to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What? TI's "stats" and "facts" wrong? INCONCEIVABLE!!!

Go back to your bunker before I launch the missles.

Originally posted by Robtard
11,430,000
This number says it all.

How do you first apprehend and then round up and then relocate that many people? How do you keep them from coming back in? And no country on Earth will accept these people back en masse. Mexico certainly wouldn't.

The costs of deportation would far outweigh whatever these people are costing America right now in 'stolen benefits.'

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well I guess that hot ***** Megan Kelly lied to me.

In other words you were just to lazy to simply research your claim, or intentionally presenting false info to further a premeditated agenda.

Which is it?

Originally posted by meep-meep
In other words you were just to lazy to simply research your claim, or intentionally presenting false info to further a premeditated agenda.

Which is it?

In other words you been lurking here for 2 hours trying to come up with a smart ass comment to further your troll agenda.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
In other words you been lurking here for 2 hours trying to come up with a smart ass comment to further your troll agenda.
It was a valid question presented in the form of trolling, but not really trolling by KMC standards.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It was a valid question presented in the form of trolling, but not really trolling by KMC standards.

I agree, he could have been less of a dick about it, considering we have never spoken and wants to act like this.

Originally posted by meep-meep
In other words you were just to lazy to simply research your claim, or intentionally presenting false info to further a premeditated agenda.

Which is it?

Please answer this TI. What reason do you have for posting false information? Was it lack of research or intentional?

Rob was being a texas sharp shooter and not looking at the big picture.

Also that source is flimsy and fishy as its partisanship.

But lets forget about what side we are on and just look at those small numbers presented.

Lets go with the numbers from 45 and over.

Totals here are

45-54 years 650,000 750,000 1,400,000 12%
55 years + 190,000 330,000 520,000 5%

Do you realize how many people that is that are going to be receiving health care and social security who have barley put into the system, we are talking hundreds of billions added onto the over burdened system.

If no one here see's that as a problem, then you are living in the clouds.

Beyond this did you know 54% of Central American illigals are already on welfare and food stamps.

http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Rob was being a texas sharp shooter and not looking at the big picture.

Also that source is flimsy and fishy as its partisanship.

But lets forget about what side we are on and just look at those small numbers presented.

Lets go with the numbers from 45 and over.

Totals here are

45-54 years 650,000 750,000 1,400,000 12%
55 years + 190,000 330,000 520,000 5%

Do you realize how many people that is that are going to be receiving health care and social security who have barley put into the system, we are talking hundreds of billions added onto the over burdened system.

If no one here see's that as a problem, then you are living in the clouds.

Beyond this did you know 54% of Central American illigals are already on welfare and food stamps.

http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011
TI, could you please tell me what you would have the USA do with all its illegals?

i really have no problem with spanish people i say let them stay. i don't know why white people are so paranoid about not being the majority anymore.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
TI, could you please tell me what you would have the USA do with all its illegals?

Force them to pay and earn there citizenship like the rest of their compadres did or deport them since its against the law.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i really have no problem with spanish people i say let them stay. i don't know why white people are so paranoid about not being the majority anymore.

Im 3rd generation in American in my family.

Also this is not white vs anyone.

Its the constitution of which we were founded on.

Also the same people that get to skip to the front of the line, while the ones who chose to do it the right way took years and a financial commitment.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Force them to pay and earn there citizenship like the rest of their compadres did or deport them since its against the law.
A lot of illegals are currently paying taxes.

http://www.itep.org/immigration/

In 2010, illegals paid an estimated $10.6 billion in state and local taxes, more than 2 billion of that in California alone.

"Allowing undocumented immigrants to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year. Their effective state and local tax rate would also increase to 7 percent on average, which would put their tax contributions more in line with documented taxpayers with similar incomes."

I don't think many of the illegals would disagree with your position, apart from the deportation part. It would be easier to tax and monitor illegal immigrants if it were easier for them to come into the light--they won't declare themselves because of the fear of arrest or deportation.

I don't know how much you know about the citizenship process in America, but I know from friends who've tried getting citizenship--and I'm talking British people, not Nicuraguans who can't speak English--and have found the process so long, grueling, and complicated that it almost isn't worth the trouble. This becomes much more difficult when you factor in language difficulties.

And this still doesn't answer the question I posed above. How do you envision more than eleven million people being rounded up and relocated? To where? Who will find them? Who will remove them?

There's only one historical example of that many people being rounded up and relocated, and that's the Holocaust. I'm not saying that deporting the illegals would be morally similar to that (though there would probably be lots of force involved and I can't envision a scenario where at least temporary interment camps wouldn't need to be constructed), but the resources and will required to get it done would be comparable.

Bottom line: I don't think mass deportation has ever been an option except in the wet dreams of certain Conservatives who haven't considered the logistics.

Its beyond taxes. Just because you come into the country illegally, and gain work illegally, does that make you a rightful national and citizen?

The proper immigration process is there for a reason, yes?

Illegal immigration is like drugs you could say, you can't get rid of drugs, but making them legal is something we would not do.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Its beyond taxes. Just because you come into the country illegally, and gain work illegally, does that make you a rightful national and citizen?

The proper immigration process is there for a reason, yes?

Illegal immigration is like drugs you could say, you can't get rid of drugs, but making them legal is something we would not do.
Did you even read my post past the second line?

I would actually support the legalization of certain drugs, in cases where said drugs don't present a serious danger to society. And just as our prisons don't have room for all the minor drug offenders, there's no feasible way of deporting all the illegals.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Did you even read my post past the second line?

I'm on my phone, will respond to the rest soon.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
A lot of illegals are currently paying taxes.

http://www.itep.org/immigration/

In 2010, illegals paid an estimated $10.6 billion in state and local taxes, more than 2 billion of that in California alone.

"Allowing undocumented immigrants to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year. Their effective state and local tax rate would also increase to 7 percent on average, which would put their tax contributions more in line with documented taxpayers with similar incomes."

I don't think many of the illegals would disagree with your position, apart from the deportation part. It would be easier to tax and monitor illegal immigrants if it were easier for them to come into the light--they won't declare themselves because of the fear of arrest or deportation.

I don't know how much you know about the citizenship process in America, but I know from friends who've tried getting citizenship--and I'm talking British people, not Nicuraguans who can't speak English--and have found the process so long, grueling, and complicated that it almost isn't worth the trouble. This becomes much more difficult when you factor in language difficulties.

And this still doesn't answer the question I posed above. How do you envision more than eleven million people being rounded up and relocated? To where? Who will find them? Who will remove them?

There's only one historical example of that many people being rounded up and relocated, and that's the Holocaust. I'm not saying that deporting the illegals would be morally similar to that (though there would probably be lots of force involved and I can't envision a scenario where at least temporary interment camps wouldn't need to be constructed), but the resources and will required to get it done would be comparable.

Bottom line: I don't think mass deportation has ever been an option except in the wet dreams of certain Conservatives who haven't considered the logistics.

If you take a look at Australia, they have zero problems with illegal immigration.

I know quiet a bit about the Immigration hurdles because my gf is Russian and she went through it. So I know it is possible. As for your British friends, I don't have an answer to that. But I can say that they will not be included in this amnesty which is very discriminating if you think about it because of their skin color.

All in all I agree with most of what you said. You are smart.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
If you take a look at Australia, they have zero problems with illegal immigration.

They actually have a growing problem with asylum seekers. I've even seen some analysts who've envisioned a war between Australia and Indonesia over the practice of Australians pushing migrants toward Indonesia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2014/01/31/australia-v-indonesia-approaches-a-flashpoint/

That they don't have the same problem as America has more to do with geography than anything else. Australia doesn't have a land border with anyone. If they shared a land border with Indonesia you'd see a lot more illegals in Australia.


Having money helps, so does having experience with forms and bureaucracy from what I understand. In the case of my friends, they kept filling out the same forms over and over again and getting the same responses, and each form seemed to lead to another form and the people who were supposed to help them really didn't give a damn about their problems. A lot of people who want to get into America for economic reasons either don't know how to get in legally or can't afford to wait on the bureaucracy--they need the money now.

I think if we get past the "they broke the law by coming illegally" mentality, we see that there's not much harm in the illegals remaining in America. The ones who commit crimes can be weeded out and deported or imprisoned, the rest should be rewarded for good behavior with fast-track paths to citizenship. The current system with the citizenship test is outdated. I'll bet you most American citizens wouldn't even pass it if they took it.


You can be my wingman any time.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Im 3rd generation in American in my family.

Also this is not white vs anyone.

Its the constitution of which we were founded on.

Also the same people that get to skip to the front of the line, while the ones who chose to do it the right way took years and a financial commitment. good for you... you don't think your ancestors were hazed in the same way? "the legal way" is so ****ed up that we would mess up our own economy if we did strictly clamp down and apply the current laws to the word. we need to figure out a way to make immigrating to this country to work and add to our economy way more simple than what it is right now. especially since you're dealing with different people with different cultures, capabilities, and expectations.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
They actually have a growing problem with asylum seekers. I've even seen some analysts who've envisioned a war between Australia and Indonesia over the practice of Australians pushing migrants toward Indonesia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2014/01/31/australia-v-indonesia-approaches-a-flashpoint/

That they don't have the same problem as America has more to do with geography than anything else. Australia doesn't have a land border with anyone. If they shared a land border with Indonesia you'd see a lot more illegals in Australia.


Having money helps, so does having experience with forms and bureaucracy from what I understand. In the case of my friends, they kept filling out the same forms over and over again and getting the same responses, and each form seemed to lead to another form and the people who were supposed to help them really didn't give a damn about their problems. A lot of people who want to get into America for economic reasons either don't know how to get in legally or can't afford to wait on the bureaucracy--they need the money now.

I think if we get past the "they broke the law by coming illegally" mentality, we see that there's not much harm in the illegals remaining in America. The ones who commit crimes can be weeded out and deported or imprisoned, the rest should be rewarded for good behavior with fast-track paths to citizenship. The current system with the citizenship test is outdated. I'll bet you most American citizens wouldn't even pass it if they took it.


You can be my wingman any time.

Its times like these where we have no right or wrong answer it seems.

Originally posted by red g jacks
good for you... you don't think your ancestors were hazed in the same way? "the legal way" is so ****ed up that we would mess up our own economy if we did strictly clamp down and apply the current laws to the word. we need to figure out a way to make immigrating to this country to work and add to our economy way more simple than what it is right now. especially since you're dealing with different people with different cultures, capabilities, and expectations.

No clue man if my grandfather was.

I could ask around the family though.


I agree, we need to make it work. But is the president taking action on his own right the way when congress has not been seated yet since the vote?

yes, because the congress aint about getting shit done one way or the other. the dems try to rep obama while the reps try to sandbag him. so **** congress anyway.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Im 3rd generation in American in my family.

Also this is not white vs anyone.

Its the constitution of which we were founded on.

Also the same people that get to skip to the front of the line, while the ones who chose to do it the right way took years and a financial commitment.

The Constitution was written by the children of illegal immigrants, just saying

Obama oh he mad.

He wants to shut down the government if republicans don't fund his bill.

Cry more.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Obama oh he mad.

He wants to shut down the government if republicans don't fund his bill.

Cry more.
That's the FOX News interpretation. It's true that if the Republicans propose a budget that doesn't include funding to his programs he might then veto said budget which would trigger a shutdown, but this is a chicken-or-egg scenario. The Republicans would be the ones creating a budget that they know Obama might veto, so it couldn't be said that Obama would be the only party responsible for a shutdown, and even less that he "wants" to shut down the government.

Edit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/01/morning-plum-republicans-have-a-simple-response-to-obamas-immigration-tyranny/

This is an interesting article. It's basically saying "if Republicans don't like the executive order, they can, you know, do their job and actually pass legislation to present an alternative that might be acceptable to both parties."

Why is it the republicans job to do immigration reform when democrats had control of the government for 4 years?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Why is it the republicans job to do immigration reform when democrats had control of the government for 4 years?

What Omega just said.

If they don't like the current plan and wish to block it, it's their job to also propose an alternate plan that both parties can agree on, instead of doing what they've done since Obama took office, deny, block and stagnate any progress like a bunch of diaper-babies.

I'm talking about before this, the last 4 years. Dem's did absolutely nothing and Obama said over 52 jobs it was not his job. So. He passes the blame to congress in which he controls, now its republicans fault. Go figure.

The conservative wing of the Republican Party has made dialogue and compromise on most issues, but especially on immigration reform and healthcare, impossible.

It's a shame that local interests (the interests/values/beliefs of a congressman's constituency) have effectively trumped national interest and clogged up the government. Republicans have to take a hard line because if they don't, they might lose primaries to more zealously conservative candidates.

Originally posted by Robtard
The Constitution was written by the children of illegal immigrants, just saying

Wouldn't they be conqueror's?

Personally, I hate talking border control, because both sides talk right past each other.

Right side: "Security, job shortage, laws being flouted, citizenship becoming meaningless."

Left side: "People fleeing inhumane conditions, families being split up, the constitution applying to everyone in our borders, jobs no one else wants."

Meanwhile, just about everyone knows a tons of people on the left and right could care less about all that stuff, and just want cheap labor and/or bolster up a voting block. Basically, their concern is how to exploit immigrants.

On the subject of the Founding Fathers, they were colonists, not illegal immigrants, legally speaking.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
On the subject of the Founding Fathers, they were colonists, not illegal immigrants, legally speaking. They were Gods, basically.

Albeit via apotheosis (deification into the constitution).

I've seen the Apotheosis of Washington statue. It's hilarious.

Difficult situation for sure. However, the cheapest thing to is to allow illegals to become citizens and have some sort of dual citizenship with Mexico. Having been in the area of San Diego and Tijuana, most people of Mexican descent are hard working and not looking for any sort of handout. Time to set aside any sort of national pride on both sides.

Originally posted by SayWhat
Difficult situation for sure. However, the cheapest thing to is to allow illegals to become citizens and have some sort of dual citizenship with Mexico. Having been in the area of San Diego and Tijuana, most people of Mexican descent are hard working and not looking for any sort of handout. Time to set aside any sort of national pride on both sides.
Apart from being something that will never happen (you're talking about a zero borders agreement, something that is inconceivable between American and Mexico for the foreseeable future), 41% of all illegal immigrants aren't from Mexico, and that percentage is growing as Mexico's economic fortunes improve.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845#countries

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I've seen the Apotheosis of Washington statue. It's hilarious. What it is, is that we came here as a Christian people "on a mission from God" to make it our prodigious home.

So, therefore, through "manifest" destiny, in God we trusted and by God we prevailed as a Godly nation. Then all sorts of chaos took hold to somehow make it the most powerful nation on earth and stay that way long after other nations, such as China, will surpass our GDP (economic parasitism will eventually starve-out any economy, go figure) because we're still set like no other in military force when culminated with our allies.

What I predict will happen when China and India surpass us, is we'll rewrite the system once more, we will lead the world into the space age and we will utilize our military-industrial complex culminated with our space-age technologies to create an infrastructure so self-autonomous, energy efficient, and resource-abundant, that once the technological singularity hits we'll be the first to realize its full implications, we'll be a penny-less nation but nothing will cost a penny here exclusively. We'll change human society forever here.

Nothing that has happened in America would have even been dreamed of by the founding fathers, and I do believe this is God's nation now. It is becoming New Jerusalem.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
On the subject of the Founding Fathers, they were colonists, not illegal immigrants, legally speaking.

All a matter of view. Those "colonist" came into the country without the permission of the people already living there, took for themselves at the expense of the natives and then refused to leave.

Sounds a lot like the same gripes many Americans levy at the illegal aliens of today.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
On the subject of the Founding Fathers, they were colonists, not illegal immigrants, legally speaking.

True. Kind of a fine line between colonization and conquest when a pre existing population gets swept aside, though.

Ireland was considered a "colony", too, but that was a pretty straightforward land grab at the expense of the native population.

Originally posted by Robtard
All a matter of view. Those "colonist" came into the country without the permission of the people already living there, took for themselves at the expense of the natives and then refused to leave.

Sounds a lot like the same gripes many Americans levy at the illegal aliens of today.

To be fair, that's pretty much the history of expansion in a nutshell. Hardly unique to US colonists.

A population can't do anything about their bloody history, and they have every right to protect the here and now.

Originally posted by cdtm
To be fair, that's pretty much the history of expansion in a nutshell. Hardly unique to US colonists.

A population can't do anything about their bloody history, and they have every right to protect the here and now.

So the "I got mine!" approach.

Originally posted by cdtm
True. Kind of a fine line between colonization and conquest when a pre existing population gets swept aside, though.

Well, going by that line of reasoning, the Founding Fathers were the descendants of conquerors, not conquerors themselves.

Native populations had been extirpated from the Thirteen Colonies (or at least, the coastal regions where all the Founding Fathers were born and grew up) decades before the War of Independence.

Strong conquer the weak. This is the circle of life as it will always be.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Strong conquer the weak. This is the circle of life as it will always be.

So, if the native Americans had killed every European that set foot on their land, then they would have been stronger and won?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if the native Americans had killed every European that set foot on their land, then they would have been stronger and won?

Yea

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yea

Does the end justify the means?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does the end justify the means?

No not really.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
No not really.

Then why would you be in support of the native Americans murdering the Pilgrims?

Oh I'm not, I misunderstood you I think.