• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Illegal drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, gun offenders, no problem.

Then here is a hint for you: go after the coyotes.

I refuse to surrender my morals. The day I do is the day I consider taking a 100 for fall off a building.

So there is my position. Destroy it all you want.

What do morals have to do with the situation? Do your morals include following the law?

Why are the latinos who are not citizens of the US more important than the black population that are citizens of the US?

Please explain that one.
 
Maybe because Mexico has some objections to its neighbor building fortified walls on its border

Who gives a flying pile of cow manure what Mexico objects too. Our country, our business.....not theirs.
 
Here's what a Sheriff on the front lines has t0 say. Perhaps Obama should have done some research. Or perhaps he did. Has President Obama issued de facto amnesty? | On Air Videos | Fox News

That is what I think. In a sweeping move to ingratiate himself to the pro-amnesty crowd, as well as gaining 12 to 20 million new voters who can be easily steered to the left, he has in effect granted almost universal amnesty to anybody who is in this country illegally. Plus, he has quadrupled the size of that enormous flashing neon sign hanging over America that says "Ya'll come and if you just lay low and/or lie a little, they'll let you stay forever and give you lots and lots of free stuff to boot." And the icing on the cake is you won't even have to worry all that much about breaking the laws here.
 
That is what I think. In a sweeping move to ingratiate himself to the pro-amnesty crowd, as well as gaining 12 to 20 million new voters who can be easily steered to the left, he has in effect granted almost universal amnesty to anybody who is in this country illegally. Plus, he has quadrupled the size of that enormous flashing neon sign hanging over America that says "Ya'll come and if you just lay low and/or lie a little, they'll let you stay forever and give you lots and lots of free stuff to boot." And the icing on the cake is you won't even have to worry all that much about breaking the laws here.

It isn't about the citizens of this great nation any longer, it's about party and ideology.
The party that can buy the most votes wins.
 
In my immediately former business--in addition to working work comp claims--I had occasion to see the employment records of hundreds of businesses and that includes the quarterly SUTA/FUTA reports that list the names and social security numbers of all the employees working for a business. On a number of these I would see employees listed but no social security number. Sometimes I would have occasion to casually inquire about that to the employer and would be told that the guy or gal said he/she didn't know the number and would get it to the employer. They almost never did though and a lot of those missing numbers, as well as the phony number, were NEVER questioned by the SSA. The few who were questioned followed by the employer asking the employee again for the number generally resulted, as you said, in the employee disappearing.

So many of the phony numbers are actually somebody else's actual number and who ever is doing data entry at the SSA just picks up the number and doesn't bother to check it against a name. So most never get caught. As long as the illegal employee stays out of trouble or doesn't get sick, it could actually be a net benefit who whoever's account is getting credit for those taxes--UNLESS the IRS finds out that no income taxes were being paid on it. But if the illegal employee gets caught breaking the law and/or gets medical treatment that could go on a permanent record somewhere, etc. all that could be going on somebody else's permanent record, could affect credit scores, etc. It is a form of identity theft that could have serious consequences for whomever's identity is being used.

My experience is identical. The other thing that was common was to claim an extreme number of dependents on W-4's. 6,8, or more is not unusual. It seemed to be a red flag to me, but there is only so much an employer can do.

When I know the truth, and then I read articles about illegals paying their fair share of taxes, etc., I know the author has no clue.

The fantasy that illegals who are now legal are going to be a boon to the economy is just wishful thinking. The people suggesting this people are either lying on purpose, or have no idea what they are talking about. Those are the only two options.
 
This is true. The Carter administration ordered strict rules about documentation required for employment to prevent illegals from working in the USA. We employers were required to obtain three different forms of documentation one of which could be a utility bill or something to prove residence. The effect was a booming cottage industry for phony documentation. Ditto when the same thing happened in the Reagan administration.

Working work comp claims, I ran across numerous illegals who were using three or four different social security numbers--one using six different social security numbers, none of which were theirs. Those states, including ours, who issue drivers licenses to illegals--and these look little different from those issued to citizens--compounded the problem. And now the Obama administration wants to issue social security numbers to illegals which will make it virtually impossible to weed the illegals out from those who are citizens.

You can pretty well bet that the next step will be to make it a civil rights violation to refuse to hire an illegal. And at that point the benefits and value in citizenship will have vanished.
It's reasonably safe to assume that every illegal immigrant in the United States will have been there longer than five years.
 
What happens if a mother and father are convicted of crimes? Are they excused because they have children? Of course not. The fact that they have children would not enter into their punishment for the crime committed.

I don't see why deportation would be any different.
Agreed.

With respect to the perception that illegal aliens deported would be separated from their children when punished for their crimes, you're right, it shouldn't make any difference, if justice for all is to be served.

They knew they were putting any kids they had, either brought with them or birthed here, at risk. The fault of this separation lies clearly with them.

However ..

.. It's mostly an over-stated myth that their "anchor baby" kids wouldn't go with them to their native country when deported.

If their U.S. citizen children are under-age, they most certainly get to go with their parents when their parents are deported.

The "anchor baby" myth was likely started and perpetuated by unscrupulous employers in America who encouraged illegal aliens to birth children here to "anchor" them here against deportation.

That marketing ploy was simply false advertising.
 
It's reasonably safe to assume that every illegal immigrant in the United States will have been there longer than five years.

For sure. I can imagine the phony document industry is already creating those utility bills, lease agreements, etc. that will be used by illegals to prove they've been here for a long time. And the legal community is rubbing its hands together in anticipation of all that lucrative business defending illegals who claim they have been here long enough to stay and are challenged on that. If the administration even plans to bother challenging them.

And the Obama administration says the focus will be on preventing new border crossings????????? Give me a break. If they had been interested in preventing new border crossings, we wouldn't have millions of people here who have been here less than 5 years would we? We wouldn't have those 30,000 illegal 'orphans' who just walked across the border and are now here. Why would a competent administration decide to secure a border now that they haven't secured in the last five years? And why wasn't it secured before?
 
Add to the above that the decision to make 'less serious' crimes like drunk driving, gun crimes, sex crimes etc. as non-deportable offenses, and you can bet almost nobody is going to be eligible for deportation.

Has it occurred to anybody else the disconnect in the logic of rewarding those who have broken the law for the longest time?

How is that different from making involuntary manslaughter worthy of the death penalty while serial killers get probation?
 
Back
Top Bottom