How can anyone be against deporting criminal aliens

Before we say too many bad things about deportation, we need to remember that many good people have liked it in the past:

“All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”​

It's from Jan. 4, 1995, Clinton's State of the Union Address from State of the Union 1995 (delivered version).. Off hand it sounds like great policy and if we liked it then we should love it now.

 

No, if you really wanted a debate, i would demonstrate, with logic & evidence the validity of my statements, & the fallacy of your 'rebuttal'. But i don't believe you want a debate, as facts, logic, & common sense are of no use to progressive leftists, who use propaganda, lies, division, diversion, & phony caricatures for their 'debate'.

So no, i won't waste my time trying to present my case to you, only to have you return ridicule, mocking, & deflections.

What 'self rule' societies? You deny the constant attacks on the American System of freedom, liberty, equality, & preservation of property? I don't believe you have the circumspection to see the big picture, as you seem to be locked in an echo chamber, & do not reason or debate things with the usual tools of civil communication.

At least, i don't remember ever having a productive conversation with you, so i do not expect one in the future. Your reply here is just ad hominem, with no rebuttal to my points.

 

no one opposes deporting illegals who have been convicted of a Felony or violent Misdemeanor.

 

No, I would never argue that a child is responsible for the immorality of their parent(s). But if you are contending that the parent acted morally by bringing their children to the United States illegally, that's simply not gonna fly.

However, your point about the laws is a valid one. Clearly, we can have (and have had) immoral laws. When that occurs, it becomes necessary to highlight the issue and work to get it corrected. That does not justify the violence and craziness that is going on in places like Berkeley. Getting immoral laws changed is a good thing, promoting anarchy is a bad thing. It's a fine line that needs to be walked, which is what I was attempting to say in a wholly inadequate fashion. Thank you for calling me on it, and for allowing me to clarify what I meant.

If you are saying that I would be in favor of deporting someone who originates from a foreign country, whether here legally or illegally, on the basis of what illegal activities they are involved in while in this country, you'd be correct. Where exactly is the flaw in my logic? We pay for the incarceration of citizens who break the law; foreigners should simply be made to leave. That's point one.

Point two is that if you prevent people who don't belong in the country from being in the country, they will not be able to break any laws while here because they won't be here. That's fairly straight forward, is it not? And sorry, as to your argument that they don't commit crimes at the same rate as citizens, I don't care. The point is that (a) they don't belong here, and (b) if they're not here, they won't be able to do anything illegal within our communities. End of story.

 

Immigration laws are illegal? Oh boy. Are you for open borders? If so you won't read a response from me. Not worth the brain cells.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for the redirect. Not that it will stop the lies though

 

No rational person who supports the rule of law would be against removing criminal aliens from our society.

 

What does this even mean?

We agree. However, the border wall is not the topic of this thread.

I'm sorry, but those people knew they were breaking the law when they illegally entered our country, overstayed their visa, or otherwise resided in the U.S. without authorization. Breaking the law has consequences.

Your ire should then be directed at the parents or the individuals responsible for illegally expatriating those children.

Again, take it up with the woman who knowingly entered this country illegally to squeeze out an anchor baby. Time for her to go. If the child is an adult, s/he as a citizen can of course stay. But that citizen will have to go back to the country of origin if s/he wants to visit mom and dad.

Every country on Earth has immigration laws. There is nothing immoral about enforcing them. We are far more generous than most when it comes to breaking our laws. And Mexico takes the cake, those hypocrites, defending its southern border with outright brutality.

 

Oh really? Why don't you tell that to the Steinle family? San Francisco County absolutely shelters, aids, and abets even multiple deportees with violent felony convictions. Kumbay-mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ing-yah.

I'm sorry, am I the only one who sees the absurdity of this statement?

Yes. Of course it is. They knew they were breaking the law. Breaking the law has consequences. They have enjoyed their illegal presence here and have reaped the benefits. And so what they paid taxes? Not paying taxes on income is also a crime. Of course so is using phony documents like most do to obtain illegal employment, public benefits, etc.. These folks , most of them, are guilty of multiple violations of the law that would land you or I in jail.

. The adult children are welcome to stay - they are citizens. If you are upset about the families being split up, take it up with the woman who knowingly entered our country illegally and squeezed out an anchor baby.

What is important here is something called the rule of law. It has been ignored for too long.

We do not need to deport anyone initially if we simply invite them to leave. The way we do this is by shutting of the magnet which consists of going after the employers first and foremost, then cutting off all public benefits including medical care, schools, free housing, food stamps, driver licenses, and finally freezing any assets they may have here including real estate, bank accounts, etc.. They can apply for the return of their liquid assets once they have reached their country of origin and have remained there for a certain time. Those who remain after this will be much easier to deport. And we absolutely need to go after anyone who has been convicted of a violent crime immediately - they should be at the top of the list. Sanctuary cities who refuse to assist federal authorities in the capture of these violent illegals should be charged with obstruction of justice.

 

I think Bow to the Robots has got a lot of things right.

Now, regarding the children of illegals being granted citizenship. I know that it says in the Constitution that being born on US soil makes one a citizen. So it seems that these children are citizens. However, I just want to point out something. In a legal dispute that I have heard about, one side presented evidence against the other side, however the said evidence was obtained in an illegal way, and as such it was rejected by the court. So, if we apply this principle, shouldn't we be able to revoke citizenship from children of illegals? Their citizenship is obtained through fraudulent means. We should take this into account. I say we strip these children of their ill-gotten US citizenship.

 

In all of this there has been not ONE mention of businesses that HIRE illegals. Without them this discussion wouldn't even be happening

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you change the Constitution (from Canada yet) you're totally wrong

 

Didn't your side say that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document"?

 

Nobody is. Obama deported more illegals than all previous presidents combined.

Why do righties constantly ignore this?

 

http://usuncut.com/news/guess-which-terrorist-group-killed-most-americans/

 

And thankfully despite the efforts of people like you, it's still breathing

 

Oh I didn't realize that the Constitution takes in oxygen and then gives out carbon dioxide.

Are you able to collect carbon dioxide from the Constitution? If you can't, maybe it's because the Constitution isn't breathing.

 

That was pretty pointless.

Thanks for the waste of bandwidth

 

The only thing pointless was your (bogus!) claim that the Constitution "breathes".

 

We that study the documents noticed early on the structure. Ignoring the preamble right now, the first body of instructions are to the Federal Government. A lot of the bickering goes on the rights of citizens and early in it's life, the 10 amendments spoke to our rights as citizens. Some confuse the 2nd amendment as giving rights to the Government, but this is a mistake. It is our rights and that is why our rights are not to be infringed. Yet listen to a democrat and they preach our rights must be infringed.

Not merely one time, but so often our head is spinning.

- - - Updated - - -

He left millions behind too. Why do Democrats ignore that part?

 

So you really do think we need to deport 11 million people?

Can we send you the bill?

 

So if enforcing the law comes with a price tag, we will just say ***k it, do nothing, and let criminals run around free?

 

Any citizen working for a living and paying taxes are already paying for all those illegals adored by leftists. So . . . yes you may. The working class ALWAYS takes it on the chin anyway. So no net change there.

 

Don't you actually believe we do get the bill?

 

The bill for deporting 11 million people?

It'd be a substantial one. We'll send it to you

 

Please Don't confuse liberals with the facts; because that's just plain cruel.