The State Loves You...

Nor I. You can familiarize yourself with deportation proceedings and an individual's legal rights here

Comparing your anecdotes to ones about the millions of hard-working, decent families is probably not the best way to construct a comprehensive, viable and realistic policy.

That the 90% White GOP could have realistic concerns about these immigrants' political orientation is, no doubt, a factor for them.

 

It doesn't matter if they're hard working and decent, they are still here illegally.

If they want to be hard working and decent, and pay taxes and contribute by coming here legally and becoming a US citizen, or even as a green card holder, I have no problem with that.

 

This is very inaccurate. The number of "law abiding" folks who he wants to deport is zero. That is pretty clever slipping that in there.

 

I am glad to see that you have a sense of humor. I am sure you are quite familiar with this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/09/30/the-war-on-america-turns-50-n2059403/page/full




.

 

Anyone who is charged with being here illegally is subject to the laws regarding deportation, and she has the right to contest any deportation order through legal counsel.

If would be far less costly if you could ignore humanitarian protections and just organize a cattle drive of your 11-12 million suspects over the border and then slap up a big wall, but we must deal with reality, not fantasy.

 

Actually, I don't follow rightist propaganda websites very closely, although I do admit that they are frequently amusing. (I find that their leftist reflections often take themselves far to seriously as well, by the way.)

You had mused about your "unregistered democrats" - and since being a "Democrat" necessitates registration as such, I assumed that you must be citing the likelihood of recent immigrants to the US joining the more diverse political party within the aegis of our government of, by, and for the People.

As a Republican senator candidly acknowledged, the homogeneity of the GOP is an existential crisis:

 

Ok, I will let up on your false claim about who Trump wants to deport. I can see that you do not like to acknowledge a loss, but then who does?

Here is what Democrats are working on now as far as the unregistered Democrats go.
http://www.breitbart.com/california...rown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/
Looks like there is still work to be done, but they are working on it pretty hard.

Are you denying that the Ted Kennedy thing from the neo nazi radical right wing extremist propaganda (conservative for the rest of the readers) web site article is true?

 

They go hand in hand. The expansion of one inevitably results in the expansion of the other, with few exceptions that are caveats for obvious reasons.

 

The State loves all the authoritarian follower boot-lickers who condone its initiation of aggression against people who have harmed no one.

 

So you're defending people being in the country illegally, who don't pay taxes, have no accountability or records of any illegal activity?

You're either here legally or illegally. There should be no defense for the latter. If they're here illegally, they should have no rights. At all. Other than to leave of course.

 

the right wants to stop you from having fun, war on drugs, patriot act, and wants to take away choice as much as any other group, the trick is seeing it within your own group (vaginal probes republicans... really?)





the latest thing both sides of government want is the keys to all encryption... if you lock your passwords in a encrypted container, the government wants a skeleton key to that container

once that key exists, you will never know who has it...

.

 

Since I have the truth on my side, you are wise to back down. I have no idea whether you are in outright denial, but Trump is on record as promising his 'deportation force' would remove 11 million people from the US - no cost estimate provided for the taxpayer.

As I had mentioned, I'm not taken in by propaganda outlets that push one ideologogy or another.

You seem to be conflating rightist websites with neo-nazi and white supremacist ones. Please note that organs such as Breitbart constantly push TP-sympathetic fare whereas The Daily Stormer that openly endorses Trump may espouse an overlapping agenda, but has a particular focus.

As for your "Ted Kennedy thing," could you refine your question. What, specifically, ar you are asking?

 

You can pretend that if you need to, but I'm merely upholding the legal system of the United States that does not presume every suspect is a criminal.

Yes, and we are a nation of laws and respect the legal process under which that determination is made. It may take longer and be far more costly than some would like, but persecting and/or prosecuting men, women, and children who are suspected of being in the country illegally is repugnant to American values.

 

Thank you for editing your original claim in post 28 that Trump wants to deport "law abiding" people.

Here is your original post before editing out that he wants to deport law abiding people.

Very inaccurate.

 

Being here illegally is pretty easy to prove or disprove. Either you have immigration/visa documents or you don't.

People who come here illegally give nothing back in the way of taxes, and have no loyalty or ties to the US.

Like I said, I have no problems with people who want to come here and participate by living and working in the US LEGALLY. Illegals just drain an already strained system and are here to take advantage of our country.

 

That's message of every progressive, whether liberal or conservative.

As opposed to, say, the almighty state providing the maternal love of cradle to grave welfare and coddling it's children to the point that they have no idea how to care for themselves and violently resist any attempts to point that out.

The state is always a bully,not just when it's working for the "side" that you oppose.

 

Yeah, Republicans don't do anything like that. No military socialism, militarized policing, more police in general, a massive War on Drugs, federal marriage, regulation of reproductive rights, unlimited spying on citizens, massive subsidies to agriculture, extensive regulation on immigration which is one form of economic protectionism, economic protectionism of Republican-favored industries, continued support for the Federal Reserve which is a government monopoly on money and a centralization of banking. That's not to mention endless foreign interventions and wars, runaway spending, deficits, and debt.

 

Not necessarily. That is why there is a process in which suspects can present their cases and appeal if they have reason to challenge a judgement.

I do not acknowledge your presumption to speak on behalf of 11 million men, women, and children regarding their loyalty, especially since some serve in our military where loyalty is essential, but, yes, since those who are working here illegally contribute to social security and have other withholdings taken from their pay year after year and collect none of it back, those who feel they should be able to meet specific requirements for citizen status have a valid point. A comprehensive immigration policy is long overdue.

To what extend the economy of the various sectors and regions of the US economy is dependent upon undocumented workers varies, of course, but this may give you a better understanding of the overall impact:

 

You've got to be kidding. You can't possibly believe some the stuff you're pandering. If you do, that's a topic for another conversation.

Anyone here legally should easily be able to prove their valid residency. Period. Certainly, if someone is here illegally, they can present their case for asylum if the situation calls for it. But that's the exception, not the rule.

 

I's important that hardcore Trumpies recognize that The Great Flatu panders to their irrational fears.

There are doctrinaire ideologues who would substitute their airy-fairy notions (Witness the disastrous Red State Model "experiment" in Kansas,) but the stark reality is that the most successful nations on earth conduct democratic elections, regulate capitalism, and maintain social welfare safety nets. That's the irrefutable, pragmatic reality: none is perfect, but it's demonstrably the best formula that anyone has found.

One's attitude toward governments of, by, and for the People is dependent upon the extent to which one identifies with or is alienated from the People, of course.There is no avoiding that - other than going somewhere else that one thinks one might prefer.


.

 

Malarky. You either have valid proof of residency or you don't.

FAIR disagrees with your assertions.

http://www.fairus.org/publications/...llegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

I'd just like to say good effort on taking facts and doing your best to try and make them sound questionable. Maybe it's the attempt at flowery explanations that make your ludicrous claims almost believable.

 

Vman, there is no getting through to him. He does not believe that a tree can fall in a forest unless he can see it, and he does not have the conscience to separate law abiding citizens from non law abiding people. The cognitive ability may be there, but it is crippled by dogma.

 

If you believe that The State can arbitrarily target individuals for deportation,deny them due process under the laws of the United States, and summarily banish them, you are mistaken.

As one would expect. It is an organisation with a radical agenda. Its founder, John Tanton, has long been a racist advocating for a White-dominant America and, along with fellow board members like Donald A. Collins, attacks non-White immigrants and the Catholic Church.

Needless to say, I do not consider FAIR a respectable source.

Clearly, the facts upset you. Not even The Trump can wave his magic wand and make 11-12 million men, women and children disappear, and your reliance upon such an extremist website only harms your ideological agenda.

 

Vman, at least he is not calling them law abiding anymore. I would have a hard time disputing that they are indeed men women and children, but will point out that he could have just called them people. The rhetoric that he used here was meant to pull the heartstrings as he builds the picture of victims. It is a classic liberal tactic, along with the rhetoric that he uses to describe conervative websites. It is ironic that he speaks of ideological agenda in this rehtoric, since there is no such thing as a conservative in his world, only extremists.

 

If you don't like to refer to men, women, and children because you claim that it pulls at your heartstrings, "people" is fine.

Due process for people is not a "liberal tactic." It is the law.

Yes, I noted the racism of the one website mentioned. Its agenda is well-documented.

If you cannot distinguish conservatives from extremists, that is not my problem. Conservative Republican and Reagan Administration official Linda Chavez resigned from Tanton's "U.S.English" after his racist memos were leaked: In 1986, Chavez became president of U.S. English, a non-profit dedicated to establishing English as the official language of the United States. She resigned in 1988 following comments by co-founder John Tanton which she regarded as "anti-Hispanic" and "anti-Catholic".

You may believe, despite studies to the contrary, that families here illegally contribute nothing to the economy and merely drain America's resources, but your wishing them all away is a fantasy. Identifying, locating, apprehending, incarcerating, prosecuting, and deporting 11-12 million people while constructing a vast, continuous border wall via the State seizing private property through eminent domain, involves enormous cost to the taxpayer (especially wasteful since more are leaving than entering as of late.)

I cite a huge real estate developer on Fox News who claims that governemnt largesse justifies the State forcing such usurpations: "Eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it's a wonderful thing. ... You're not taking property. … You're paying a fortune for that property,” he said of the process, adding that homeowners can be paid “four, five, six, ten times” their property’s value.

A developer used to getting his way who is hellbent on seizing private property to build a vast wall at taxpayer expense, and is willing to pay many times the property's value for it, can actually sell the notion to some folks, apparently.


.