You won't get off that easy. I go after BS in here and shine the light of day on it. I know that makes leftist squirm but it's who I am,it's what I do.
We need to take away the incentive for illegals to want to come here. We need immigrants who can contribute to our society and have something to offer. Let the illegals steal in their own country. They say it costs $65,000 over a 5 year period for each refugee in this country. It would be cheaper to offer each refugee $30,000 to go back home or go somewhere else. Why should refugees live better than our own citizens. Why are we not moving up our own welfare people into a higher standard and putting the new refuges in their places? All refugees should have to perform some type of public service. We should train their men to fight and supply them with the tools and weapons to go back to their country and fight and die for it than American troops.
Germany is now doing just that http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/11/merkel-will-pay-migrants-leave-germany/
Three expected revisions in new Executive Order: Thus the new Executive Order is clearly intended to prevent Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from seven countries with serious terrorism problems whose backgrounds cannot be adequately checked, from getting access to the US. Ambiguities in the language of the original Order and malicious misinterpretations by dishonest media led many to see that Order as a racist effort to ban Muslims. The revised Executive Order clarifies the purpose and scope, who can object to temporarily delaying immigration procedures so the authorities can more accurately determine the backgrounds of applicants from countries afflicted by very serious terrorism problems? - - - Updated - - - Three expected revisions in new Executive Order: Thus the new Executive Order is clearly intended to prevent Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from seven countries with serious terrorism problems whose backgrounds cannot be adequately checked, from getting access to the US. Ambiguities in the language of the original Order and malicious misinterpretations by dishonest media led many to see that Order as a racist effort to ban Muslims. The revised Executive Order clarifies the purpose and scope, who can object to temporarily delaying immigration procedures so the authorities can more accurately determine the backgrounds of applicants from countries afflicted by very serious terrorism problems?
It's talk about money and I want what Hillary want illegal immigration. Not south border Wall what Trump want in campaigns last year. - - - Updated - - - 12 month back he wanted wall.
Nobody is advocating the complete removal of social security nets. The issue is providing social security nets to people who aren't citizens and who are illegally settled.
This is anecdote and a totally worthless argument. Statistically poor people are more likely to commit crimes. People ok welfare are generally poor. Social nets exist because fortunately we live in a society that acknowledges it's indecent to neglect those without life's necessities when we clearly have the means.
Especially when you read an article like this. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/11/michs-farm-labor-shortage-hits-immigration-politics/90246606/ Why are the 'refugees' enjoying free accommodation and free money when they could be actually contributing. An added impetus is that if they work on a farm the language barrier comes down because cattle and plants don't understand any language, no matter how foreign.
Trouble is that for many the social safety net has now become a social hammock. As for people on welfare being poor, yes some are but on many many occasions as a cop I would respond to a domestic call because the family was drunk and/or stoned and fighting. Pull up outside and there would be brand new cars, still with the temporary registration sticker, big screen TV's, premium cable package in every room and everyone in the house had at least 1 of the very latest cell phones. So I'm not guessing or making assumptions it's a fact gleaned from personal experience. Don't get me wrong, they are doing nothing wrong by being on welfare and having no intention of ever getting a job, for many it's now past the point of no return and they are incapable of working anymore. What is wrong, and what is now being changed, is the system that allows them to sit around all day doing nothing and getting paid for it.
It's a matter of education. We should lavish our educational establishments with tax cash- instead of allowing crooked politicians to squander it on the military- over a thousand bases worldwide- and foreign parasites like Israel- to whom Obama just gifted 38 billion dollars. Education creates employment .
Agreed. And it is the job of the country of origin of all these people to provide, not the U.S. We have our own sick and poor to help. We can help them even more if we aren't also supporting illegals.
For once I agree with you. Close all overseas bases and use our military in DEFENSE of the US. Of course if a friendly nation is in need of support from the US military we would go to their aid, but only after the fee the US will charge for our services has been decided.
It seems reasonable to have other countries sign-up to a mutually-binding agreement that their respective governments reimburse each other for money spent on the support of their citizens abroad.
Not when you do not know the nature of the people involved. The complexity of that solution has many hidden costs and pitfalls that would prove difficult to quantify into a certain financial cost. There is also no way to recoup any potential costs, both financial and human, should those people prove to be violent.
This is a good strategy, deny them support, if they stay or forced to stay they will be on dire situation no job no welfare and then forced to do something more illegal like committing crimes and this time it will justify further the deportation and the other way is to leave the US it's not anymore the land of milk and honey. Trump is such a genius honed with the cruelties of the corporate world, the cut-throat ways.
I would think that the courts' jurisdiction would be limited to "people who are within the jurisdiction of the US", without regard to citizenship or immigration status. For example US courts could not intervene in Amanda Knox's case, even though she was retried after being found not guilty in Italian courts (double jeopardy). If you're not physically here, I don't see how our constitution can legally protect you.
I wish they'd do something about the rapists among them. That's a more likely danger I would think. Yes, we already have that problem here... but no sense in intentionally making it worse.
True, I don't understand how the 9th Circuit could have overlooked this, it's pretty basic, but that was their decision -that due process rights of foreigners abroad must be upheld, and that their mere desire to seek residence in the US constitutes a protectable right.
