Another question for you open border doves: is it xenophobic to deport illegal immigrants?

No, but trying to deport all of them is like trying to fight the drug war. It won't end and will just drain money continuously. Would it not be easier to give some benefits for signing up to become a legal citizen at the border (or in posts within the US) and cracking down on the remaining illegals? Migrants give a good bonus to the economy so it wouldn't hurt us.

@Жұқтыру

Idk, he's pretty honest about these things. He would have already apologized if he was in any sort responsible for it. Btw, there's a judge who ruled the protests anti-trump were defended by the 1st amendment anyway.


@[AOE] JaiBharat909

It's not xenophobic, but it falls probably under the moral issue. What's xenophobic on trump is calling those illegals rapists, drug dealers and thieves, when it's obviously the exception. Most of them are just trying to have better conditions of life.

The two flavors of fascist supporters should quit fighting their battles in the streets like children. You aren't doing a revolution, you're just having a riot that won't affect anything , you doltish brown shirts.

No, but trying to deport all of them is like trying to fight the drug war. It won't end and will just drain money continuously. Would it not be easier to give some benefits for signing up to become a legal citizen at the border (or in posts within the US) and cracking down on the remaining illegals?

Here's what I think is a conservative, common sense, and fair immigration plan.

1) Complete the wall along the southern border and reinforce weak points
2) Increase border patrol by 3 fold
3) Deport all criminal illegal aliens
4) Withhold all federal funding to sanctuary cities
5) Institute an entry-exist visa tracking system
6) Implement a mandatory e-verify system
7) Install sensors, cameras, and drone monitoring of the southern border
8) Put all non-criminal illegal aliens on a road to legalization but never citizenship - they would have to pay back taxes, engage in community service for X amount of hours, and would not receive any welfare benefits or education subsidies until they become legalized
9) Any new illegal immigrants who arrive after the wall is completed would be automatically deported
10) People who arrive here legally cannot use the chain immigration rule to bring in their families
11) Tax all money sent by those holding a visa or green-card to their family at 10%
12) Decrease the # of H1B visas by 50% and reserve them only for business sectors with a legitimate supply shortage of American workers

Edited 3/13/2016 22:00:10

Idk, he's pretty honest about these things. He would have already apologized if he was in any sort responsible for it.

What things? Admitting he was mistaken is easier than admitting you hired mercenaries to "disconvenience" the main candidate.

Here's what I think is a conservative, common sense, and fair immigration plan.

It is conservative, but not common sense nor fair.

I don't think he hired people to attack trump. That's non-sense lol

He definitely could have and is motivated to. However, saying that he definitely did is unfounded propoganda.

1) Complete the wall along the southern border and reinforce weak points

Too much money, and violates the tenth amendment

2) Increase border patrol by 3 fold

Too much money, and is border patrol even constitutional?

3) Deport all criminal illegal aliens

We already do that, we just aren't omnipotent

4) Withhold all federal funding to sanctuary cities

Fine by me

5) Institute an entry-exist visa tracking system

Alright, a bit creepy, but ok

7) Install sensors, cameras, and drone monitoring of the southern border

Over. My. Dead. Body.

8) Put all non-criminal illegal aliens on a road to legalization but never citizenship - they would have to pay back taxes, engage in community service for X amount of hours, and would not receive any welfare benefits or education subsidies until they become legalized

As humans they deserve fair trials and rights. They are born with these rights. The way the government is set up, we give these rights to citizens (though all humans have them, we just don't respect them). As they are humans, they should be given them and be effectively citizens.

9) Any new illegal immigrants who arrive after the wall is completed would be automatically deported

Fair enough

10) People who arrive here legally cannot use the chain immigration rule to bring in their families

Why not?

11) Tax all money sent by those holding a visa or green-card to their family at 10%

Fair enough

12) Decrease the # of H1B visas by 50% and reserve them only for business sectors with a legitimate supply shortage of American workers

If a American engineer can't compete with a Mexican one, why should the government make the person hiring the Mexican one accept the worse one?

I agree with major's point. About the deportation of new illegal immigrants, I also think it's fine, but provided the asylum rules don't change.

If a American engineer can't compete with a Mexican one, why should the government make the person hiring the Mexican one accept the worse one?

I guess the market rules of a liberal economy doesn't work when you put mexicans into the equation.

Too much money, and violates the tenth amendment

Reinforcement of National Borders falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government under national security. However if the states were willing to pay for the costs through state taxes then I would be alright with having a congressional bill sanctioning state border construction. Also its not that much in cost relative to the cost of trying to track and deport illegal aliens.

Too much money, and is border patrol even constitutional?

We'll stop propping up Ukraine and cut the military aid budget. I'm pretty sure border patrol is constitutional because national borders fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

We already do that, we just aren't omnipotent

No we don't. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/aug/28/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-obama-administration-released-104000-crim/

^Read that. It makes me throw up.

Over. My. Dead. Body.

I understand the concern over drones, sensors, and cameras. But I don't want this illegal immigration problem to come back 10 years later. They promised border security in the late 1980s and they lied to us. We need to fix the damn problem. No more open borders.

As humans they deserve fair trials and rights. They are born with these rights. The way the government is set up, we give these rights to citizens (though all humans have them, we just don't respect them).

Legalization means they would enjoy all the rights as citizens except they would not be able to vote. They would essentially be permanently on a green-card. Its completely constitutional and fair.

Why not?

Chain immigration creates a problem with too much legal immigration. The number of legal immigrants should be kept at a constant number and should be based on 1) merit and 2) high-skills they possess.

If a American engineer can't compete with a Mexican one, why should the government make the person hiring the Mexican one accept the worse one?

Because businesses are abusing the H1B system to get cheap labor even if their industry or business sector doesn't have a supply shortage of qualified American workers.

Edited 3/13/2016 23:03:24

3) Deport all criminal illegal aliens

We already do that, we just aren't omnipotent

No, we don't. Obama's illegal executive action makes sure of that.

I understand the concern over drones, sensors, and cameras. But I don't want this illegal immigration problem to come back 10 years later. They promised border security in the late 1980s and they lied to us. We need to fix the damn problem. No more open borders.

The government thinks any place within the US that a migrant could be is near the border. I don't want the government doing authoritarianism under the guise of border security.

Reinforcement of National Borders falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government under national security. However if the states were willing to pay for the costs through state taxes then I would be alright with having a congressional bill sanctioning state border construction. Also its not that much in cost relative to the cost of trying to track and deport illegal aliens.

The illegal immigrants are breaking our laws, not invading militarily.

Because businesses are abusing the H1B system to get cheap labor even if they're industry or business sector doesn't have a supply shortage of qualified American workers.

Those American workers have to compete to succeed

Edited 3/13/2016 23:09:33

We'll stop propping up Ukraine and cut the military aid budget.

Doing less awful things is not a justification for doing more awful things.

But I don't want this illegal immigration problem to come back 10 years later.

TeamGuns talked about this earlier - bulk immigration is not a problem, it is a good.

Legalization means they would enjoy all the rights as citizens except they would not be able to vote. They would essentially be permanently on a green-card. Its completely constitutional and fair.

So are you proposing just forgetting about human rights for illegal immigrants?

Chain immigration creates a problem with too much legal immigration. The number of legal immigrants should be kept at a constant number and should be based on 1) merit and 2) high-skills they possess.

Why do you want your country to win? The point is not to win, the point is to better as many folk as you can, as much as you can. Then, all we win.

@TeamGuns

It's not racist to increase border security. What's racist and xenophobic is to say mexicans that come to our country are all rapist, thieves and drug dealers, but some I assume, are good people. That's a xenophobic sentence no?

No. Its an obvious fact that some coming into the US through the Southern borders are dangerous people. Drug mules from Mexico are highly documented, for an example. If he was xenophobic he would be saying 'All foreigners are bad people, obviously the problem here isn't Mexicans, but the crime some of them bring in. Besides, Trump spoke out recently about accepting skilled foreign labour into the US, but of course you don't mention that.

Btw, Idk why Sanders should apologize, he hasn't asked his supporters to attack trump.

No, but all that race baiting language from Sanders such as 'white people don't know what its like to live in a ghetto or be poor' has fed the BLM war rhetoric and made the current situation as it is. Of course he isn't the only one responsible. Besides, everyone was leaping on Trump to disavow David Duke, now nobody asks Sanders to disavow violent BLM protesters. No peaceful political discussion should be interrupted, whether from silent or violent protesting, no?

Not like trump who says "beat the crap out of them, I'll pay for any sue"

It is absolutely hilarious, after our last discussion on abusing the context of quotes that you did it again.

The entire quote is ..
''The security guys said, Mr. Trump, there may be some people in the back with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of ‘em. Would you? Seriously. Ok? Just knock the hell—I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.''

Oh look. It was actually a hypothetical situation, and one on self-defence, too. But of course you coveniently choose to omit that.

or says "there was blood comming out of her, whatever"

How does that, in any way incite violence?

Edited 3/13/2016 23:29:10

"TeamGuns talked about this earlier - bulk immigration is not a problem, it is a good."
No, it isn't. It is unsustainable.

"So are you proposing just forgetting about human rights for illegal immigrants?"
Wot? How is voting a human right?

Its an obvious fact that some coming into the US through the Southern borders are dangerous people.

It's also an obvious truth that some Americans are Christian extremists, murderers, rapists, neonazis, and many other horrible things. His point was, though, that saying "some" illegal immigrants are good folk, when they're clearly by far in majority is quite xenophobic.

The entire quote is ..
''The security guys said, Mr. Trump, there may be some people in the back with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of ‘em. Would you? Seriously. Ok? Just knock the hell—I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.''

Oh look. It was actually a hypothetical situation, and one on self-defence, too. But of course you coveniently choose to omit that.

I don't see how it's taken out of context. He's asking them to beat up folk who want to heckle him - unless throwing a tomato will somehow critically injure him, and it really is in self-defence.

"TeamGuns talked about this earlier - bulk immigration is not a problem, it is a good."
No, it isn't. It is unsustainable.

Really? Since I think America, from a very big part to immigration, grew from 5 million in 1800 to 325 million in 2016 while keeping it's somewhat high living standards is a proof of sustainability, amongst others.

"So are you proposing just forgetting about human rights for illegal immigrants?"
Wot? How is voting a human right?

Not saying voting, but

As humans they deserve fair trials and rights. They are born with these rights. The way the government is set up, we give these rights to citizens (though all humans have them, we just don't respect them).

Legalization means they would enjoy all the rights as citizens except they would not be able to vote. They would essentially be permanently on a green-card. Its completely constitutional and fair.

sounds like he wants to throw out the window other human rights, like right to a fair try in court.

Edited 3/13/2016 23:38:27

Doing less awful things is not a justification for doing more awful things.

Your line of thinking is dangerous if not completely unreasonable. You're asking the US 1) not to enforce our immigration laws 2) give illegal immigrants special treatment even though they've broken the law 3) to risk American security by having open borders 4) to call the rule of law an "awful thing".

bulk immigration is not a problem, it is a good.

About 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. Should we let every single one of them into America? How much legal immigration do you think we should have? How much wage competition should we force onto Americans? How much should we bankrupt the US to help other people?

So are you proposing just forgetting about human rights for illegal immigrants?

Voting is not a human right.

Why do you want your country to win? The point is not to win, the point is to better as many folk as you can, as much as you can. Then, all we win.

Dude do you not understand the idea of national sovereignty? I am not a communist and nor am I rabid globalist like you are. You essentially want American policy to redistribute wealth worldwide. I.e. make American poorer to make the world richer. That's insane. I wouldn't tell the UK, Russia, China, India, or any other country to subvert and sabotage their own economies to help the world and neither should the US. Things like this make me glad foreigners can't vote in the US.

sounds like he wants to throw out the window other human rights, like right to a fair try in court.

You've convinced me you have a miscommunication problem. I said they would get all the rights as citizens, including the right to a fair trial. The only thing they wouldn't get is the right to vote. How is that a violation of human rights??!!!

Edited 3/13/2016 23:44:06

"Legalization means they would enjoy all the rights as citizens except they would not be able to vote."
The only thing he is denying them is voting, unless you're saying citizens don't get a trial. Work on reading comprehension.

Жұқтыру just got accused of being a communist... Really, you trump supporters are really bad at arguing:

- Step one: say something that is a total non-sense.
- Step two: when someone answer you with facts, keep denying what they say.
- Step three: when the argument is clearly lost, just attack personally the person in order to maker it's arguments non-valid, by calling her a communist or defender of ISIS.

Really, it's the same fucking rethoric everytime. Funny thing, most of these folks don't even know what communism is, or they wouldn't call everyone communists when it's clearly not the case.


Immigration is good to a country. Over 20 countries that received huge ammounts of immigrants in recent years, only one had bad consequences overturning the good ones. And guess what country it is? Lebanon. Where a quarter of the population (more then one million) is made up of refugees. The 19 other countries had good consequences beating the bad ones. So unless you're a lebanese, clearly refugees contributed to your country.