• 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!

U.S. immigration bill 'in doubt' this year, Republican Ryan says

Three Steps to stopping illegal immigration and making them go back home.

1. Any company that hires an illegal, any person that pays an illegal for work is first given a warning. Nice men in suits show up, present the evidence, explain how NOT to hire illegals and then what will happen if they do so again. On the second offense, the company is find $10,000 per illegal per working day. A third offense will land the CEO/OWNER and/or manager in charge in prison for up to two years.

2. Aside from emergency care, no subsidy or assistance of any kind if you are here illegally. No food, no shelter, no nothing.

3. Any child determined to be here illegally, will be denied access to school. (a major draw is bringing children to the States for free public education).
*Oh and end the Anchor Baby bull****.

Do the above, watch the illegals head home.

Of course, this is "mean" and would "Hurt children and families" so it won't ever happen. We'll just keep doing nothing, letting illegals work for slave labor, feeding them, caring for them, educating them till the dollar implodes.

Because people, when faced with an emotional choice, tend to make stupid decisions.
 
I really hope they hold this line...There is no way that border security will be enforced once the demo's get their amnesty passed. Plus, despite demo's whispering into some repub's ears about how they need to appeal to the hispanic vote through amnesty, it has never helped in the past...

According to Pew Research it reads as such:



Note that in 1984, AFTER Reagan granted amnesty Mondale garnered 61% of the Hispanic vote over Reagan's 37%, a 24% difference for Mondale. Further, 4 years later, Dukakis, a real laughing stock of a candidate, garnered 69% to H.W. Bush's 25%, a 39% difference for demo's...And finally, G.W. Bush's numbers? Bush was supposedly so in tune with hispanic voters as former Gov. of TX, and a big comprehensive immigration reform proponent only got 40% of the first vote, to Kerry's 58%.....That was the lowest differential in 30 years, but still a full 18% down....

Face it we could grant amnesty to every Hispanic, and their families for the next hundred years, and Hispanic's are NOT going to vote for us, period!

Thoughts?

I think security first before amnesty is still a bad deal. A government that sues states for trying to crack down on illegal immigration while ignoring states that encourage illegal immigration will never be trusted to secure the border in exchange for amnesty regardless if its amnesty first before security or security first before amnesty. Immigration reform should never have any amnesty,dream acts, pathway to citizenship, a promise to pay fines in exchange for legalization or any other form of amnesty period. Immigration reform should only consist of measures to discourage illegal immigration and the discourage the encouragement of illegal immigration.

Immigration reform should consist of the following-



1.Crack down on the scum who hire illegals.Treat them no different than we do drug dealers and other criminals who profit from and or use their money for illegal activities.

2. In order to get any ID or driver's license you present a birth certificate( in rare cases a non-availability birth certificate where it has been investigated that the individual was born in the US), green card, or certificate of naturalization and social security card.After that require a state issued ID or driver's license in order to the following-

-enroll yourself into school
-enroll your minor kids into school
-apply for welfare,food stamps,section 8 housing and any other tax payer assistance for yourself and or your children
-get a business license,fishing/hunting permit,building permit, license to practice law, food handlers permit, gun license(in states that require a permit to buy a gun),concealed carry permit(in states that require a license to conceal carry) or any other tax payer funded service
-open a bank account, cash a check, use a credit/debit/pre-paid card, apply for a loan,or wire money.
-rent,borrow,lease or buy property
-rent,borrow,lease or buy a motor vehicle.
-get legal documents for yourself or your children.
-get utilities

3.Mandate E-verify for every employer,school and government office.

4.Repeal part of the immigration and nationality act of 1965 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouse or minor children.This would virtually eliminate anchor babies.

5.Seeing how many of these people here illegally came her on a visa and let it expire we should also cut off visas to citizens of countries we have the most illegal immigration problems with until those numbers go down.

6.Any elected or appointed official who encourages illegal immigrants will be thrown into prison,permanently barred from any elected or appointed office, be denied any legal licenses and etc.

7.Hire enough border agents to actually secure the border and arm them.

8.Anyone caught aiding illegals should be thrown into prison.It doesn't matter if they are simply leaving water out in the desert for illegals or smuggling them.
 
What I just love is when Mexican leaders lecture us on how we must show compassion, however in their own countries:

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

Read more: Mexico's illegals laws tougher than Arizona's - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Yet, Jan Brewer was the "bad guy"?

Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

  • Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

  • Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

  • Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

  • The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

  • Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

  • A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

  • A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

  • Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

  • Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

  • Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

  • Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

  • Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

  • “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

  • Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

  • Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

  • A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

  • Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American

immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home | Human Events
 
Last edited:
Ok, well, what's wrong with closing the borders first, and making sure that we don't still have the leaky roof? You seem to be remodeling the room before fixing the leak...

If they can't get government services here, can't work there, they won't come here. How else are we going to close the borders?

As for the criminals, we'll have to deport them. We don't want to have to pay to put them in our jails, after all, and I'm sure they'll be better off in jails in their home countries.

Especially places like Mexico and Guatemala. I hear their prisoners aren't anxious to get back in once they get out.
 
If they can't get government services here, can't work there, they won't come here. How else are we going to close the borders?

As for the criminals, we'll have to deport them. We don't want to have to pay to put them in our jails, after all, and I'm sure they'll be better off in jails in their home countries.

Especially places like Mexico and Guatemala. I hear their prisoners aren't anxious to get back in once they get out.


Close the borders first. Or at least along side of cutting off the gravy train.
 
Do you really think there is a practical way of closing the border? How?

Yes. We bring home all US troops on foreign soil and station them along the US Border, in their PROPER role. We create a 200 yard "No Man's Land" inside the border. Anyone in that area the ROE is... Stoot First. Shoot Second. Leave it there to rot.
 
Yes. We bring home all US troops on foreign soil and station them along the US Border, in their PROPER role. We create a 200 yard "No Man's Land" inside the border. Anyone in that area the ROE is... Stoot First. Shoot Second. Leave it there to rot.

8th amendment, due process, probable cause? who needs it?
 
Yes. We bring home all US troops on foreign soil and station them along the US Border, in their PROPER role. We create a 200 yard "No Man's Land" inside the border. Anyone in that area the ROE is... Stoot First. Shoot Second. Leave it there to rot.

Practical.
 
8th amendment, due process, probable cause? who needs it?

You're either trying to enter or exit the country illegally, so there is no need for any of that crap.

Practical.

Very much so. I've got more extensive ideas on a means to further secure the borderS (Mexico AND Canada) but they require a dismanteling of the social welfare net first.
 
You're either trying to enter or exit the country illegally, so there is no need for any of that crap.

Really? which federal law makes it illegal to exit the country? please cite the statute.
 
Really? which federal law makes it illegal to exit the country? please cite the statute.

There are plenty of federal laws related to tresspassing on Federal Property, which that 200 yard buffer zone would be. In many instances deadly force is authorized if you do so.
 
There are plenty of federal laws related to tresspassing on Federal Property, which that 200 yard buffer zone would be. In many instances deadly force is authorized if you do so.

You would have the government buy up all of the land within 200 yards of the borders and station the military to shoot anyone who tries to cross.

It seems to me that there is already a nation in the world that has such a system in place, one that doesn't want the people from the south to enter their worker's paradise in the north, one that is satisfyingly authoritarian. No doubt it would be worth emulating that nation.
 
There are plenty of federal laws related to tresspassing on Federal Property, which that 200 yard buffer zone would be. In many instances deadly force is authorized if you do so.

federal property means an installation closed to the public, not public land on the international border. and deadly force is not authorized merely for being in "buffer zones" the "USE OF DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED" sign looks cool, but it's not how things work. use of deadly force authorized when trying to steal federal property, making armed incursions, etc etc etc. and only when reasonable to do so. tell me how many people who've attempted to enter Area 51 have been shot.... none.

Furthermore, the constitution prohibits use of deadly force except as reasonably nessecary to preserve life (Garner v. Tennessee) and the Constitutional protections apply to aliens as well as citizens.

people go up to the border all the time. there's towns that literally touch the border, your kill team going to execute the entire population of Nogales? cemetaries, missions, other historic sites are located on the border, and the areas on the border are popular with hikers, backpackers etc. your idea is a stupid one. and it's totally illegal.
 
You would have the government buy up all of the land within 200 yards of the borders and station the military to shoot anyone who tries to cross.

It seems to me that there is already a nation in the world that has such a system in place, one that doesn't want the people from the south to enter their worker's paradise in the north, one that is satisfyingly authoritarian. No doubt it would be worth emulating that nation.

No. I'd have the Government CONFISCATE that land, along with a similar buffer along the Canadian border. Eventually it would be constructed to be a dual level defensive perimeter that would make the coastal defenses of Normandy look like paper mache. Between the levels would be a "no man's land/minefield" with overwatch from the interior defensive perimeter and electronic surveilance..
 
federal property means an installation closed to the public, not public land on the international border. and deadly force is not authorized merely for being in "buffer zones" the "USE OF DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED" sign looks cool, but it's not how things work. use of deadly force authorized when trying to steal federal property, making armed incursions, etc etc etc. and only when reasonable to do so. tell me how many people who've attempted to enter Area 51 have been shot.... none.

The should be shooting those people. Maybe the dead bodies would deter the next group thinking about coming onto the property.

Furthermore, the constitution prohibits use of deadly force except as reasonably nessecary to preserve life (Garner v. Tennessee) and the Constitutional protections apply to aliens as well as citizens.

Realize that I have next to no use for the US Constitution at this point.

people go up to the border all the time. there's towns that literally touch the border, your kill team going to execute the entire population of Nogales? cemetaries, missions, other historic sites are located on the border, and the areas on the border are popular with hikers, backpackers etc. your idea is a stupid one. and it's totally illegal.

That 200 yard perimeter would be bulldozed flat to the ground. It's that simple. Since there would be no legal crossing points, that really wouldn't be too much of an issue.
 
The should be shooting those people. Maybe the dead bodies would deter the next group thinking about coming onto the property.
Civilized people call that murder.

Realize that I have next to no use for the US Constitution at this point.
Then get out of this country.

That 200 yard perimeter would be bulldozed flat to the ground. It's that simple. Since there would be no legal crossing points, that really wouldn't be too much of an issue.

Most people would consider bulldozing a Mexican town to be an act of war.
 
The should be shooting those people. Maybe the dead bodies would deter the next group thinking about coming onto the property.

No need really, just stop putting out water stations to help in the desert.

Realize that I have next to no use for the US Constitution at this point.

Invaders have never been shielded by constitution in the past and they shouldn't be now.

That 200 yard perimeter would be bulldozed flat to the ground. It's that simple. Since there would be no legal crossing points, that really wouldn't be too much of an issue.

I don't particularly like the idea, but I suppose it's a better use of emminent domain then we generally see these days.
 
1. Civilized people call that murder.
2. Then get out of this country.
3. Most people would consider bulldozing a Mexican town to be an act of war.

1. There are few truly Civilized people left in this country. They're much more like ME than you.
2. I've been working on that.
3. There are Mexican towns on THIS SIDE of the border? I'm talking about the first 200 yards of US soil, not Mexican soil.


1. No need really, just stop putting out water stations to help in the desert.
2.Invaders have never been shielded by constitution in the past and they shouldn't be now.
3. I don't particularly like the idea, but I suppose it's a better use of emminent domain then we generally see these days.

1. Good start but it doesn't go anywhere near far enough.
2. That we will agree on.
3. Agreed.
 
No. I'd have the Government CONFISCATE that land, along with a similar buffer along the Canadian border. Eventually it would be constructed to be a dual level defensive perimeter that would make the coastal defenses of Normandy look like paper mache. Between the levels would be a "no man's land/minefield" with overwatch from the interior defensive perimeter and electronic surveilance..

well I guess those of us up here in the PNW and the mountain midwest will have to give you a demonstration of the 2nd amendment if you ever get into power... considering the significant connection we have to canada up here.... especially trade wise.

I will state this, I am not anti government... if someone like you ever becomes the government, I'm breaking out the guns.....
 
Last edited:
well I guess those of us up here in the PNW and the mountain midwest will have to give you a demonstration of the 2nd amendment if you ever get into power... considering the significant connection we have to canada up here.... especially trade wise.

Then maybe you folks should seceed and join Canada if you like Canadians so much. Wonder how well your sight picture looks hopped up on all that legal marijuana out there.
 
Then maybe you folks should seceed and join Canada if you like Canadians so much. Wonder how well your sight picture looks hopped up on all that legal marijuana out there.

I wonder how yours will look when you're put on baker hold and forced to take your meds...
 
I wonder how yours will look when you're put on baker hold and forced to take your meds...

Already dealt with.... My Living Will demands that I not be given any food or water if ever forcibly sent to a hospital or mental health facility. 8-10 days and it's all over.
 
Already dealt with.... My Living Will demands that I not be given any food or water if ever forcibly sent to a hospital or mental health facility. 8-10 days and it's all over.

ha, your living will does not forbid the police from declaring you a danger to yourself and others (which you probably are) and sending you to the wacky shack for 48 hours for observation......

can you believe it? now our forum lawyer is an expert in end of life care decisions ;)
 
ha, your living will does not forbid the police from declaring you a danger to yourself and others (which you probably are) and sending you to the wacky shack for 48 hours for observation......

Doesn't make a difference. My DNR and Living Will are on file with the State. Any facility in the Communistwealth of Massachusetts will have access to it, and I've got a lawyer who is willing to fight it all the way to the top if necessary..... Of course that's suggesting that they could take me alive to begin with, which would be a trick in and of itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom