• 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. embassy cables warned against expelling 300,000 immigrants. Trump officials did it anyway.

eohrnberger said:
Oh of course not. :roll:

How about you respond to 'if their legal status changes, the laws should be enforced'?
Click to expand...

Problem here is that the law itself is not being changed. Trump is simply creating orders that are in violation of the law, and by the time it gets through the Courts it will be too late to bring them back.

Hard for the right wing sychophants to understand considering their own racist attitudes. You might do yourself a favor and actually google the laws, and read them.
 
Old Trapper said:
Problem here is that the law itself is not being changed. Trump is simply creating orders that are in violation of the law, and by the time it gets through the Courts it will be too late to bring them back.
Click to expand...

If that's how it plays out, so be it.

Hard for the right wing sychophants to understand considering their own racist attitudes. You might do yourself a favor and actually google the laws, and read them.
Click to expand...

No 'right wing sychophant' here.
 
Rogue Valley said:
This is the much ballyhood "compassionate conservatism" and "family values".

It's ugly beyond measure.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's a false claim and shabby propaganda. The author of "compassionate conservatism," George W. Bush, proposed a sweeping immigration reform that would have allowed people to stay. It was defeated in Congress by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats.
 
Old Trapper said:
Problem here is that the law itself is not being changed. Trump is simply creating orders that are in violation of the law, and by the time it gets through the Courts it will be too late to bring them back.

....
Click to expand...


^^ that



Now that the memos have been uncovered, hopefully that will help expedite injunctions.
 
Amelia said:
U.S. embassy cables warned against expelling 300,000 immigrants. Trump officials did it anyway.

Good article on the cascade of destabilizing effects which the Trump administration is in the process of triggering by sending 300,000 legal U.S. residents back to their country of origin. With an additional 270,000 young people involved who are U.S. citizens -- either to be left here in the U.S. without their parents to support them, or taken with their parents to unstable regions, which will become even more unstable with the influx of so many new residents and the drying up of the money those new residents had been sending home from the U.S.

Some of the likely results described in this article include drying up job creation in the affected areas, driving up gang and smuggling activity, and increasing the incentives of people to stay here illegally or return illegally, in order to be with their American children in the U.S.

It appears that we may be in violation of the law which says that our decisions to deport these people need to take account the ability of the home countries to handle large numbers of deportees. Whether we're in literal breach of the law, where is the wisdom in destabilizing already fragile countries in this way -- countries whose destabilization is already known to affect us negatively?
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS recently heard arguments in a case revolving around the President's immigration authority. Before Trump there was no question the authority was extremely broad and discretion virtually unlimited. I suspect (but obviously cannot know) the SCOTUS will uphold that pre-Trump interpretation.
 
Jack Hays said:
The SCOTUS recently heard arguments in a case revolving around the President's immigration authority. Before Trump there was no question the authority was extremely broad and discretion virtually unlimited. I suspect (but obviously cannot know) the SCOTUS will uphold that pre-Trump interpretation.
Click to expand...

Before Trump we didn't, in modern times, have presidents on record making the kind of discriminatory declarations that we get from Trump.

He hamstrings himself and shows that his intent is not consistent with the law.

Several courts have said this matters. Hopefully the weight of his comments versus the weight of the experience of the State Department people on the ground will matter even to the rightleaning SCOTUS.
 
Amelia said:
They are here legally, on a provisional basis. The law says their temporary status can be revoked or renewed. The law says that when considering renewal, conditions in their home countries need to be considered. If their home countries are sufficiently stable, they need to be sent back . If they are not, they need to be allowed to stay here.


All signs point to their home countries not being sufficiently stable. All signs point to the Trump administration letting their agenda override advice from people intimate with the facts on the ground. It's not good for America to destabilize our neighbors to the south, filling them up with more job hunters while cutting off 20 to 30% of the money they currently use to keep their countries afloat. It's not good for America to turn 270,000 young American citizens into wards of state here or into whatever the gangs down there will have in store for them.
Click to expand...

So how does it help America if they stay? I’m not asking how they would benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
eohrnberger said:
If that's how it plays out, so be it.



No 'right wing sychophant' here.
Click to expand...

Sorry, your actions appear as if you are. Evidently you, like so many of the right wing, care little for the law. In fact, you are not even interested in looking it up yet will defend your tin god Trump. And then you say you are not a sychophant of his. :roll:
 
MrShangles said:
So how does it help America if they stay? I’m not asking how they would benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Since right wingers love lower wages for the working class, they do help by keeping wages down. Then too I would suggest you do a little research on how they are creating jobs, paying taxes, etc. You really need to ask yourself what all of that has to do with violating their legal rights. What happened to the Rule of Law?
 
Wait...arent these the folks that got all up in arms because their countries were rightfully labelled '****holes'? Since they whined so much about the name, why would they object to returning home to their paradise?
 
Old Trapper said:
Sorry, your actions appear as if you are. Evidently you, like so many of the right wing, care little for the law. In fact, you are not even interested in looking it up yet will defend your tin god Trump. And then you say you are not a sychophant of his. :roll:
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS is considering the extent of presidential authority and discretion.
 
MrShangles said:
So how does it help America if they stay? I’m not asking how they would benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



You are asking me to repeat something I've said over and over.

It helps us if their home countries don't become worse economically by having 300,000 to 575,000 deportees thrust into them or by decimating their income stream. If we sent those people back, we're cutting the gross domestic product of those countries by 20% or more. It helps us if we don't help the criminal cartels in those countries. If we send those people back we're giving the gangs an income stream and providing English-speaking recruits for the gangs.

These people are contributing to communities. Many have bought homes. They are supporting their U.S. citizen children. It helps us if they continue to support their children and if the children are not put into the welfare system and not given a reason to hate this, their native country.

It is very bad for us if we create an army of young people who are free to legally travel in and out of the U.S. and who hate us for sending their families into harm's way.

The article I linked in the OP says it better than I can.


Sometimes national security and compassion intersect. This is one of those cases.
 
Amelia said:
You are asking me to repeat something I've said over and over.

It helps us if their home countries don't become worse economically by having 300,000 to 575,000 deportees thrust into them or by decimating their income stream. If we sent those people back, we're cutting the gross domestic product of those countries by 20% or more. It helps us if we don't help the criminal cartels in those countries. If we send those people back we're giving the gangs an income stream and providing English-speaking recruits for the gangs.

These people are contributing to communities. Many have bought homes. They are supporting their U.S. citizen children. It helps us if they continue to support their children and if the children are not put into the welfare system and not given a reason to hate this, their native country.

It is very bad for us if we create an army of young people who are free to legally travel in and out of the U.S. and who hate us for sending their families into harm's way.

The article I linked in the OP says it better than I can.


Sometimes national security and compassion intersect. This is one of those cases.
Click to expand...

Still don’t see how it’s a good thing for me, an American, I’m sorry for them but that’s the way it is, we cannot take everybody in the world that doesn’t have a good life.
How many can we afford to carry, did you forget about all the government aid they receive, you say they come from bad countries so I don’t think they come with money to live, where does that come from.
Come on now, tell us how it helps Americans? Please tell us!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrShangles said:
Still don’t see how it’s a good thing for me, an American, I’m sorry for them but that’s the way it is, we cannot take everybody in the world that doesn’t have a good life.
How many can we afford to carry, did you forget about all the government aid they receive, you say they come from bad countries so I don’t think they come with money to live, where does that come from.
Come on now, tell us how it helps Americans? Please tell us!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


They have been here a long time. They have jobs. They work legally, not under the table like illegal immigrants so often have to. They make enough money to support their families and send a heckuva lot of money to their home countries. We aren't carrying these people. If we kick them out we'll be carrying a lot of their children though.

And we'll be making their home countries a lot more dangerous. You seem unaware of how much of their crime affects us.

Supposedly Trump is aware of it. He made a big deal at the SOTU about how bad MS-13 is and how much damage it is doing in the U.S. Deporting these people will empower MS-13. That will hurt us.
 
Amelia said:
They have been here a long time. They have jobs. They work legally, not under the table like illegal immigrants so often have to. They make enough money to support their families and send a heckuva lot of money to their home countries. We aren't carrying these people. If we kick them out we'll be carrying a lot of their children though.

And we'll be making their home countries a lot more dangerous. You seem unaware of how much of their crime affects us.

Supposedly Trump is aware of it. He made a big deal at the SOTU about how bad MS-13 is and how much damage it is doing in the U.S. Deporting these people will empower MS-13. That will hurt us.
Click to expand...

I’ll say it slowly this time, they came here with no money, who gave them medical treatment, housing, food, ect. Can you answer the question?
How does that benefit Americans.
And you also say they send money back to home country, shouldn’t they pay back what government handouts they got first.
But you probably won’t answer will you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrShangles said:
I’ll say it slowly this time, they came here with no money, who gave them medical treatment, housing, food, ect. Can you answer the question?
How does that benefit Americans.
And you also say they send money back to home country, shouldn’t they pay back what government handouts they got first.
But you probably won’t answer will you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I'll say it slowly now. Years ago they came here with no money. That was then. They are profitable residents now.

Sending them back to their home countries won't give us back whatever we gave them to get on their feet. It will just destabilize their home countries in a way which could bite us hard in our national ass. AND we will be paying more as many of their American citizen children go into the welfare system because the parents are no longer here to support them.


Your need to punish them for needing a helping hand many years ago is in conflict with our national security interests now.
 
.... and also there is the continuing issue of it possibly being against the law to send them back to their home countries .....
 
Amelia said:
.... and also there is the continuing issue of it possibly being against the law to send them back to their home countries .....
Click to expand...

We can’t help everyone, do you understand, life is tough.
How many of them are you taking care of right now.
And them working and sending money back doesn’t help us either does it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrShangles said:
We can’t help everyone, do you understand, life is tough.
How many of them are you taking care of right now.
And them working and sending money back doesn’t help us either does it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Nobody is talking about helping everyone. (Well, I'm not. It's not related to the topic of the thread.)


We're talking about our legal obligations concerning people who are living in this country now, and the national security implications of sending 300,000 to 575,000 people to unstable countries which impact our own country.


Yes, them sending money back to those countries helps us. If we stop them from doing that, then those countries lose 20 to 30% of their GDP and we're back to the cascade of negative effects which those countries taking such a hit could have on our national security.
 
Last edited:
Amelia said:
Nobody is talking about helping everyone. (Well, I'm not. It's not related to the topic of the thread.)


We're talking about our legal obligations concerning people who are living in this country now, and the national security implications of sending 300,000 to 575,000 people to unstable countries which impact our own country.


Yes, them sending money back to those countries helps us. If we stop them from doing that, then those countries lose 20 to 30% of their GDP and we're back to the cascade of negative effects which those countries taking such a hit could have on our national security.
Click to expand...

Please tell me your not really that stupid.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrShangles said:
Please tell me your not really that stupid.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Someone here is acting ignorant. That's for sure.

Goodbye.
 
If they are not permanent legal residents we have the right to boot them for any or no reason at all. It's the gamble they take. Is it exactly fair? Well it's pretty screwed up to dangle the carrot and not allow them to stay if they have been good members of society, but it is what it is. Hopefully they saved their pennies and will go home to a better place then they left.
 
lefty louie said:
If they are not permanent legal residents we have the right to boot them for any or no reason at all. It's the gamble they take. Is it exactly fair? Well it's pretty screwed up to dangle the carrot and not allow them to stay if they have been good members of society, but it is what it is. Hopefully they saved their pennies and will go home to a better place then they left.
Click to expand...


The law says that we have to take into account the ability of the home countries to handle that many deportees.

And it appears that the home countries are not in a position to be able to handle the influx.

And further destabilizing our neighbors to the south is not in our national security interest.
 
Amelia said:
The law says that we have to take into account the ability of the home countries to handle that many deportees.

And it appears that the home countries are not in a position to be able to handle the influx.

And further destabilizing our neighbors to the south is not in our national security interest.
Click to expand...

"Take into account" does not require that we allow it to be determinative.
Conditions in home countries will not decide this question.
No one is afraid of destabilization to the south.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom