• 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!

121 murders attributed to illegals released by Obama administration

You don't seem to understand what a tremendous burden those who are here illegally put on the education and healthcare systems. This is because you don't live in a border state. Easy for you to sit in Tennessee and indulge yourself in hyperbole.

If anyone wants to have a serious discussion, that's fine. But we just DO HAVE those millions of people who ARE here. If you really don't want them to get healthcare, then what is the option except we let human beings die for lack of care? If you don't want to educate the children of illegals, then what is the option for them when they grow up here? It's not working a job, or a job is FAR less likely, so what is the option if not crime?

You're right I don't live in a border state, but the problem is difficult and one liners and slogans aren't going to solve it. We rolled out a red carpet for them, thousands of employers provide them millions of jobs (nearly every roof in my neighborhood was replaced by a team of illegals), no one in government actually cares, the employers love it, and these people have families, and they need what we all need - food, education, lodging, healthcare.

Someone make a serious proposal and we can debate it. What can I say?
 
What would "I" do?. I would do what my grand parents did. Work. Raise a family that works, owns businesses, graduates from college, serves our nations armed forces and instills its values to next generations.

It's funny how many times I've asked this question and conservatives really don't want to give a direct answer. The question was what you'd do "in their shoes" sitting in Mexico or Guatemala or somewhere.

I get it - if you're any kind of decent father/son/husband, you'd do what the millions have done and walk across, take the jobs being offered, and give your family the best life you can possibly give them IN THE U.S. And you'd ignore immigration laws same way the employers do.
 
If anyone wants to have a serious discussion, that's fine. But we just DO HAVE those millions of people who ARE here. If you really don't want them to get healthcare, then what is the option except we let human beings die for lack of care? If you don't want to educate the children of illegals, then what is the option for them when they grow up here? It's not working a job, or a job is FAR less likely, so what is the option if not crime?

You're right I don't live in a border state, but the problem is difficult and one liners and slogans aren't going to solve it. We rolled out a red carpet for them, thousands of employers provide them millions of jobs (nearly every roof in my neighborhood was replaced by a team of illegals), no one in government actually cares, the employers love it, and these people have families, and they need what we all need - food, education, lodging, healthcare.

Someone make a serious proposal and we can debate it. What can I say?

That is harsh. I'm not aware of anyone proposing denying emergency care. How about they get their care and then if they are determined to be illegal, they are deported once they are discharged from the hospital. You were talking about people dieing for a lack of care.
 
Are you being deliberately wrong? The link was to debate on a bill that addresses LEGAL immigrants. What do you expect?
No I think you're being deliberatly wrong. The current bill does not address legal immigrants, which is why the video of Session stated in the first 20 seconds:

Sen. Jeff Sessions said:
Sessions:

My amendment would simply say that if you are here illegally, did not enter legally, and you get a lawful status here in the United States, you then to not qualify for the Federal programs of Obamacare and Medicaid.

You see, you only amend a bill with things that it does NOT have. If the original bill stated what you claim, an amendment of the same would not be needed.



And the Dream Act excludes convicted criminals, so that's wrong. You're O for 2 so far.
The perhaps you can explain why the INS release 60 thousand of them from jails into the population. Actually, you're 0 for 2, but nice projection there.


So why did illegal immigration go negative during the recession?
You'll need to provide a legit citation showing it did go negative.

Now you start with the strawman - I never said I didn't like Pew. What I said was:

Ockham said:
Polls are a snapshot in time and many times the snapshot methodology isn't provided or is biased in it's questions.

But don't let that stop you from mis-characterizing my statement in order to forward your intellectually dishonest and biased point of view.

If you've got other evidence, feel free to provide it, but burying your head in the sand and saying "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! NANANANANANANNA" isn't actually a legitimate argument.
When can I expect to see pictures of you eating dirt? There's a study saying it's good for you...

I'm not offended at all. I'm just a person who tries to make decisions based on the best data and evidence available. If you have any actual evidence I'd love to see it.

Fact is I don't need evidence to show how ridiculous your positions are. If I needed evidence that would suggest you actually have a leg to stand on, which you don't. :coffeepap:
 
That's why this thread is about eh laws that allowed them to be released. We have some bad laws/policies in place that need to be changed to stop allowing this kind of thing to happen. We have the opportunity to remove some "undesirables" from our society in the same manner that most nations do and we are failing to do so. The story highlighted one person, but the problem of released illegal immigrants committing additional crimes after their release is well documented and fairly frequent.

Just because the problem exists in other areas is NOT justification for allowing it this area. In the case of illegal immigrants, if they are here illegally, then the basic standard for dealing them is to send them back to their nation of origin ASAP. That's the MINIMUM that should happen. Just releasing them is STUPID, regardless of whether they have committed any other crimes or not. If you are here illegally and you get arrested for it, then you should be returned to your nation of origin as soon as you have been convicted of this crime.

As an aside, the OP was an attempt to blame this on Obama and the liberals, but that's not the issue.

For the rest, I mostly agree. And the problem is we just do not have the resources to jail all these people once they're detained and until they get through the process. We could change the laws and essentially do away with due process, or build a few dozen more prisons, or double or triple the immigration judges and all the rest. But we haven't done that.

As we speak and for the past several decades at least, being here illegally is a minor crime, and what it would require is a change in the law to make it a more serious crime, then dedicating a lot of resources to deal with that decision. It would require treating criminal employers at least as seriously as the illegals they hire because that is the draw. We'd have to hire a ton of interior enforcement to enforce those laws and levy huge penalties on those employers who break the law. We haven't done that. Etc.

It's just frustrating that these serious problems get reduced to soundbites, or in this thread an inflammatory headline that makes people dumber on the issue and does nothing to figure out how to solve this serious problem.
 
It's funny how many times I've asked this question and conservatives really don't want to give a direct answer. The question was what you'd do "in their shoes" sitting in Mexico or Guatemala or somewhere.

I get it - if you're any kind of decent father/son/husband, you'd do what the millions have done and walk across, take the jobs being offered, and give your family the best life you can possibly give them IN THE U.S. And you'd ignore immigration laws same way the employers do.
Wrong. I would not trespass and take a job under the table and live like a hermit so as to no get caught and sent back.
I would come, get my paperwork and work on becoming a citizen. Just like my grand parents did.
 
It's funny how many times I've asked this question and conservatives really don't want to give a direct answer. The question was what you'd do "in their shoes" sitting in Mexico or Guatemala or somewhere.

I get it - if you're any kind of decent father/son/husband, you'd do what the millions have done and walk across, take the jobs being offered, and give your family the best life you can possibly give them IN THE U.S. And you'd ignore immigration laws same way the employers do.

Not true, I've answered you directly on this and the answer is not to pay 5-10, 000 dollars to abandon my family and my country to jump the border. Good grief, there are more countries close to Mexico or Guatemala that have jobs that they can easily immigrate legally to and not pay a coyote.
 
No I think you're being deliberatly wrong. The current bill does not address legal immigrants, which is why the video of Session stated in the first 20 seconds:

You quoted the relevant part: "that if you are here illegally, did not enter legally, and you get a lawful status here in the United States, you then to not qualify for the Federal programs of Obamacare and Medicaid."

Not sure what to say. If a person gets lawful status, they are a legal resident. They're no longer an "illegal." And if you don't want the kids of legal residents to get healthcare, what do we do when they get sick or mom gets sick? Dump them on the ER I guess. Do you have another suggestion?

The perhaps you can explain why the INS release 60 thousand of them from jails into the population. Actually, you're 0 for 2, but nice projection there.

I don't know where you get that number, but what I know is the Dream Act excludes convicted criminals. You called those being released "Dreamers" - that's wrong. Here's a summary:

This initiative, announced on June 15, offers a two-year, renewable reprieve from deportation to unauthorized immigrants who are under the age of 31; entered the United States before age 16; have lived continuously in the country for at least five years; have not been convicted of a felony, a “significant” misdemeanor, or three other misdemeanors; and are currently in school, graduated from high school, earned a GED, or served in the military. Within this population of potential beneficiaries, however, are three distinct groups:

So those released from prisons aren't "Dreamers."

You'll need to provide a legit citation showing it did go negative.

I have provided two - Pew and the Census. Provide your own evidence if you don't think either is "legitimate."

Now you start with the strawman - I never said I didn't like Pew. What I said was:

You said the polls or surveys are a snapshot. Of course - we need the estimates for different years, so yes, there will be different snapshots to tell us how the population has changed. This is necessary and obvious.

Second you said that the methodology could be a problem. Fine, that's true enough, so what is it about Pew or Census that you think biases the results? Other than you don't like the results, of course.

But don't let that stop you from mis-characterizing my statement in order to forward your intellectually dishonest and biased point of view.

When can I expect to see pictures of you eating dirt? There's a study saying it's good for you...

It's very simple - I try to find the best evidence available. If you don't like the evidence I have provided, the typical way to contest it is to provide other, more authoritative evidence, or at least make a persuasive case for why you reject the evidence I presented. All you've done is say, essentially, I don't need no facts, I have my opinion.

Fact is I don't need evidence to show how ridiculous your positions are. If I needed evidence that would suggest you actually have a leg to stand on, which you don't. :coffeepap:

OK, so you've made it official. Thanks. I should have read this first and saved myself some typing. You don't need evidence. Got it!
 
You quoted the relevant part: "that if you are here illegally, did not enter legally, and you get a lawful status here in the United States, you then to not qualify for the Federal programs of Obamacare and Medicaid."
Which is still irrelevant, it's cute you think it's relevant though.

Not sure what to say. If a person gets lawful status, they are a legal resident. They're no longer an "illegal."
Not until the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional they won't.

I don't know where you get that number, but what I know is the Dream Act excludes convicted criminals.
You didn't answer my question, though I'm not surprised.

So those released from prisons aren't "Dreamers."
Ah, so Obama just released criminals back on the streets with no hope of ever becoming legal, just because we need what... more criminals to commit more crime? Are you listening to yourself?

I have provided two - Pew and the Census. Provide your own evidence if you don't think either is "legitimate."
Which changes nothing I've already stated.

Second you said that the methodology could be a problem. Fine, that's true enough
Good glad you agree.

It's very simple - I try to find the best evidence available.
The best evidence available is you should eat dirt. Will you?

Get a better argument and I'll provide some evidence.

OK, so you've made it official.
When someone says "got it" they normally don't which is true in your case yet again, and it's always been official - it's never been UN-official. Please do try to keep up.
 
Not true, I've answered you directly on this and the answer is not to pay 5-10, 000 dollars to abandon my family and my country to jump the border. Good grief, there are more countries close to Mexico or Guatemala that have jobs that they can easily immigrate legally to and not pay a coyote.

OK, name one that even comes close to offering the same opportunities as the U.S. Honduras? Good choice with the highest murder rate in the world, controlled by the gangs. El Salvador is also good - the murder rate there is just 10 times that of the U.S.
 
OK, name one that even comes close to offering the same opportunities as the U.S. Honduras? Good choice with the highest murder rate in the world, controlled by the gangs. El Salvador is also good - the murder rate there is just 10 times that of the U.S.

Costa Rica. Tons of Canadians retire there.
 
well, ok so you do want a berlin wall. Great. And we'll have to search all truck traffic and the trunks of all cars and ships and boats, etc. Sounds doable to me, and then we can get illegal immigration to zero and isis isn't a threat.

enforce the laws we have!!!!!!!!!
 
Which is still irrelevant, it's cute you think it's relevant though.

Not until the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional they won't.

You quoted Sessions, the term he used is "lawful status" and now you're telling me he didn't mean "lawful status" at all but something else. Give me a break.
You didn't answer my question, though I'm not surprised.

If you tell me who these people were who were released from prisons, I'll respond to your question. I can't address a population that I can't identify. But you've changed the goal posts from Dreamers to convicted criminals. I was addressing your claim that Obama wants to give these felons legal status. That's BS.
Which changes nothing I've already stated.

Correct, you dismissed data you don't like out of hand and have no other evidence to contradict it, but you do have gut feelings!

The best evidence available is you should eat dirt. Will you?

The article provided no evidence I should eat dirt. What is said was eating dirt has been common throughout history, and speculated that it might provide the same type of benefits as modern day Pepto Bismol. Since I have access to the drug, there is really no advantage to me digging a hole in my backyard to get to the clay, and eating that. Those benefits if any are available through other means.

Now that I've addressed your red herring, can we move on?

Get a better argument and I'll provide some evidence.

When someone says "got it" they normally don't which is true in your case yet again, and it's always been official - it's never been UN-official. Please do try to keep up.

I don't know how to respond to arguments that consist entirely of "I reject that evidence, and offer none of my own." I guess we'll have to leave it here.
 
Costa Rica. Tons of Canadians retire there.

Sure, and here is a summary of their immigration laws. Residency in Costa Rica - How to obtain, Rules and Law - Costa Rica Immigration Law

Retirees wouldn't have a problem because they can meet the requirement that they have a pension of at least $1,000 per month or at least $60,000 to deposit in cash in a bank account, paid out $2,500/month for two years, or $200,000 to invest in Costa Rica.

I'm sure a poor person from Mexico or Guatemala would have no problem with coming up with the $60,000 per person.....
 
You quoted Sessions, the term he used is "lawful status" and now you're telling me he didn't mean "lawful status" at all but something else. Give me a break.
The terms he used were you are "here illegally, did not enter legally", and I have been giving you a break all throughout this thread.

If you tell me who these people were who were released from prisons, I'll respond to your question.
:lamo Does that nonsense actually work with anyone? The INS doesn't even know who these people are nor where they went. You can't answer because you can't answer - you can't explain the release because it's so supremely moronic of a move, it's inexplicable. You're not doing a very good job defending the INS and Obama's move so far. Perhaps these former criminals will simply have their criminal past erased or forgiven. You know... pen and phone + ignoring law and Constitution = Presidential Executive Order.

Correct, you dismissed data you don't like out of hand and have no other evidence to contradict it, but you do have gut feelings!
The evidence shows eating dirt is good for you, per the study I linked. When will you be eating dirt? You seem to not want to answer but since you go by the best evidence available... :lamo You really do make it too easy.

The article provided no evidence I should eat dirt.
Then you must not have read it.

What is said was eating dirt has been common throughout history, and speculated that it might provide the same type of benefits as modern day Pepto Bismol. Since I have access to the drug, there is really no advantage to me digging a hole in my backyard to get to the clay, and eating that. Those benefits if any are available through other means.
So you don't go by the best evidence available when it doesn't suit you to. :lamo

Now that I've addressed your red herring, can we move on?
Hardly - you've done everything BUT address it.

I don't know how to respond to arguments that consist entirely of "I reject that evidence, and offer none of my own." I guess we'll have to leave it here.
You can't respond because you simply don't have the tools nor capability to answer, none of which is really your fault.
 
If anyone wants to have a serious discussion, that's fine. But we just DO HAVE those millions of people who ARE here. If you really don't want them to get healthcare, then what is the option except we let human beings die for lack of care? If you don't want to educate the children of illegals, then what is the option for them when they grow up here? It's not working a job, or a job is FAR less likely, so what is the option if not crime?

Option??? They go back to their own country and get health care there and let their kids attend school there. Can you think at all!!!
 
It's funny how many times I've asked this question and conservatives really don't want to give a direct answer. The question was what you'd do "in their shoes" sitting in Mexico or Guatemala or somewhere.

I get it - if you're any kind of decent father/son/husband, you'd do what the millions have done and walk across, take the jobs being offered, and give your family the best life you can possibly give them IN THE U.S. And you'd ignore immigration laws same way the employers do.

That's the same thing bank robbers say. And burglars and welfare frauds and tax cheats. "Hey dood - i just want more money so i can have a better life". But you have to do it legally and the bank robbers and illegal invaders aren't doing that. THINK
 
Last edited:
That is harsh. I'm not aware of anyone proposing denying emergency care. How about they get their care and then if they are determined to be illegal, they are deported once they are discharged from the hospital. You were talking about people dieing for a lack of care.

The EMTALA Act requires that hospitals give free emergency health care to illegals. Naturally the illegals claim every health problem is an emergency. That's how they get free health care for everything.
 
As an aside, the OP was an attempt to blame this on Obama and the liberals, but that's not the issue.

For the rest, I mostly agree. And the problem is we just do not have the resources to jail all these people once they're detained and until they get through the process. We could change the laws and essentially do away with due process, or build a few dozen more prisons, or double or triple the immigration judges and all the rest. But we haven't done that.

As we speak and for the past several decades at least, being here illegally is a minor crime, and what it would require is a change in the law to make it a more serious crime, then dedicating a lot of resources to deal with that decision. It would require treating criminal employers at least as seriously as the illegals they hire because that is the draw. We'd have to hire a ton of interior enforcement to enforce those laws and levy huge penalties on those employers who break the law. We haven't done that. Etc.

It's just frustrating that these serious problems get reduced to soundbites, or in this thread an inflammatory headline that makes people dumber on the issue and does nothing to figure out how to solve this serious problem.

WE already know how to solve this problem. Stop giving freebies to the illegal invaders and they won't come. Name one other country that gives welfare and drivers licenses and free health care and free k-12 to illegal invaders. No wonder they come.
 
The terms he used were you are "here illegally, did not enter legally", and I have been giving you a break all throughout this thread.

What he was talking about were people who entered illegally but who were granted LEGAL STATUS. At that point, they are not illegals, they are legal residents and he wants to prevent that sub-population of legal residents from getting benefits available to other legal residents.
:lamo Does that nonsense actually work with anyone? The INS doesn't even know who these people are nor where they went. You can't answer because you can't answer - you can't explain the release because it's so supremely moronic of a move, it's inexplicable. You're not doing a very good job defending the INS and Obama's move so far. Perhaps these former criminals will simply have their criminal past erased or forgiven. You know... pen and phone + ignoring law and Constitution = Presidential Executive Order.

Give me a link to your 60,000 number.

The evidence shows eating dirt is good for you, per the study I linked. When will you be eating dirt? You seem to not want to answer but since you go by the best evidence available... :lamo You really do make it too easy.

Then you must not have read it.

So you don't go by the best evidence available when it doesn't suit you to. :lamo

I did read it. Where did it say I should eat dirt and not take, for example, Pepto-Bismol. Can you quote the article?

There is lots of evidence that being exposed to dirt as a kid helps your immune system, however. Growing up on a farm drastically reduces the rate of asthma and allergies, and they presume it's because of being exposed to "dirt" for lack of a better way to describe it. But I'm 51 and so any potential benefit of eating dirt as a child is long past.

See, this is how to discuss a source. I've addressed the evidence presented, agreed that there are in fact several studies that show eating dirt can in fact provide health benefits, and addressed why in my case I don't see the advantages.

[quote} You can't respond because you simply don't have the tools nor capability to answer, none of which is really your fault.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm actually waiting on evidence.
 
Sure, and here is a summary of their immigration laws. Residency in Costa Rica - How to obtain, Rules and Law - Costa Rica Immigration Law

Retirees wouldn't have a problem because they can meet the requirement that they have a pension of at least $1,000 per month or at least $60,000 to deposit in cash in a bank account, paid out $2,500/month for two years, or $200,000 to invest in Costa Rica.

I'm sure a poor person from Mexico or Guatemala would have no problem with coming up with the $60,000 per person.....

The law you linked to has been altered, it's linked in the article:

The New Costa Rica Immigration Law at The REAL Costa Rica Blog

Even tougher and they are enforcing their law, unlike the US. That last may be why those who would invade another country head to the US rather than relocate their family to CR or try to do a work and send money home scheme.

In fact CR seems to have some common sense solutions that we don't here. One of which is the requirement of citizenship or legal presence in the country to rent or buy a place to live. Thanks for pointing me to that. Sounds like a perfectly good element to add to the mix of our own law. That and actually enforcing it.

But to remind you of what you asked and what I provided:

Originally Posted by JasperL

OK, name one that even comes close to offering the same opportunities as the U.S. Honduras? Good choice with the highest murder rate in the world, controlled by the gangs. El Salvador is also good - the murder rate there is just 10 times that of the U.S.
 
If anyone wants to have a serious discussion, that's fine. But we just DO HAVE those millions of people who ARE here. If you really don't want them to get healthcare, then what is the option except we let human beings die for lack of care? If you don't want to educate the children of illegals, then what is the option for them when they grow up here? It's not working a job, or a job is FAR less likely, so what is the option if not crime?

Please--enough of the hyperbole. I want for citizens of this country who pay for healthcare to have healthcare. ERs are clogged with the uninsured as it is, and some rural hospitals are at the breaking point. And those straining the system don't just come there to die--they come because they have colds and other viruses and minor injuries and to give birth.

You're right I don't live in a border state, but the problem is difficult and one liners and slogans aren't going to solve it. We rolled out a red carpet for them, thousands of employers provide them millions of jobs (nearly every roof in my neighborhood was replaced by a team of illegals), no one in government actually cares, the employers love it, and these people have families, and they need what we all need - food, education, lodging, healthcare.

Someone make a serious proposal and we can debate it. What can I say?

Not much. You don't live in a border state, and you do not understand first-hand, only what you've read and seen on TV. You don't understand the impact on communities of those who are here illegally.
 
That's the same thing bank robbers say. And burglars and welfare frauds and tax cheats. "Hey dood - i just want more money so i can have a better life". But you have to do it legally and the bank robbers and illegal invaders aren't doing that. THINK

They're not remotely comparable. Those who come here to work are entering into an agreement with their employer, it's voluntary on both sides.

It's kind of funny too. We love "free markets" and the free movement of capital to seek out better alternatives wherever they are, but that's only for the capitalists. The workers are expected to observe these things called borders.
 
The EMTALA Act requires that hospitals give free emergency health care to illegals. Naturally the illegals claim every health problem is an emergency. That's how they get free health care for everything.

My proposal doesn't solve that?
 
Trump said they don't send their best. But everyone freaked out and called him a bigot.

I'd rather take the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and the homeless than other nation's 1%.
 
Back
Top Bottom