CA cop who is a legal immigrant from Fiji, murdered by illegal alien on xmas day.

the killer, an illegal immigrant, had two dui convictions after he came here. But in CA, a progressive sanctuary state, local law enforcement is prohibited from telling ICE about his arrests, because god forbid he be deported.

So instead of being home with his family, this cop leaves behind a widow and a 5
month old baby. hooray!!!

can one of the liberals here explain to me, why we are better off not deporting people who come here illegally, and who then continue to break our laws after they get here? who does that help, exactly?

i agree with liberals in some big social issues. on this issue, i don’t get it, i just don’t. they’re on another planet.

how many lives are we willing to sacrifice, on the altar of politically correct bullsh*t??

i’m not saying all illegal
immigrants are bad ( I’d
come here illegally if i had to, in order to feed
my family). i’m talking about illegal immigrants who then commit additional crimes once they are here. why do we tell
local law enforcement to not cooperate with the feds, specifically to protect these people? why?

Why?
Ask the ones who support sanctuary cities, people like the vacationing Pelosi and like Schumer etc.

Really sad 😞 about this latest news, much like the criminal who was released in NJ to go on a murder spree in Missouri killing 3 people.
Ya have to wonder when will this nonsense stop. Will it take maybe one of the privileged to be a victim of this type thing? I understand we have criminals in this country already but we don’t need to allow more to come here illegally and cause more harm.
People need to wake up to the fact we cannot rely on out government to keep us safe, we have to be able to do it ourselves and be vigilant and always aware of our surroundings. An actual rule of law would be nice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i find Paul S o be one of the more thoughtful
left leaning folks here, i’m genuinely interested in his take. not on the wall, but on the sanctuary policy of refusing to alert ICE when illegals commit additional
crimes after they are here.

i believe even sanctuary cities will
alert ICE if an illegal commits a violent felony. but the two DUIs plus other warrants (?) are harmless enough that in CA, state law prohibits local
law enforcement from alerting ICE to deport. that policy appears to have contributed mightily to this outcome.

i don’t see the upside to it. i mean cars kill more people than illegals, but i don’t want cars outlawed, because cars add value to our lives. i don’t see the value in telling all
the illegals thatvcwrtain places will allow them
to commit additional crimes without alerting ICE. obviously illegals who are criminals will choose to settle in these places, exposing the law abiding citizens to more crime.

what’s the upside?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your breaking the law and aren’t here legally I have no problem helping drive his arse to the border.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your breaking the law and aren’t here legally I have no problem helping drive his arse to the border.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

X2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

X2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

X3
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sad case but it doesn’t look like local PD knew he had violent gang ties or they would have reported him. I know this may be hard for you to fathom but sanctuary laws have been found to make communities safer Jim. It’s why so many police chiefs favor the laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sad case but it doesn’t look like local PD knew he had violent gang ties or they would have reported him. I know this may be hard for you to fathom but sanctuary laws have been found to make communities safer Jim. It’s why so many police chiefs favor the laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ostriches prefer the safety of keeping their head in the sand too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sad case but it doesn’t look like local PD knew he had violent gang ties or they would have reported him. I know this may be hard for you to fathom but sanctuary laws have been found to make communities safer Jim. It’s why so many police chiefs favor the laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
local police knew he had two dui’s.
knew it for a fact.

show me a poll, please, that says police chiefs favor these laws, you just make crap up that serves your ideology. by what logic does it make us safer to forbid local law enforcement to let Ice know an illegal has two dui’s? i’m all ears. please elucidate. you can never admit your side is on the wrong side, you just can’t. it’s fascinating.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know this may be hard for you to fathom but sanctuary laws have been found to make communities safer Jim.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

safer for whom?

Straight from that very liberal flyover state.
Iowa police chiefs: ‘Sanctuary City’ bill would make our communities less safe

Most significant, the proposed bill would diminish the trust that keeps our cities safe in the first place. We depend on residents, including immigrants, to come to us when they see something suspicious or potentially criminal. If they hear of a looming “crackdown” that could affect their families and friends, they are less likely to come to us to report and prevent actual crimes. Our state’s growing immigrant population — about 150,000 individuals, or 5 percent of Iowa residents — will be confused and scared by this bill. We believe SF 481 would undo all the relational trust and goodwill we have built over many years.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi8mpiE58bfAhWwVN8KHenTDxwQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.desmoinesregister.com%2Fstor y%2Fopinion%2Fcolumnists%2Fiowa-view%2F2018%2F02%2F08%2Fiowa-police-chiefs-sanctuary-city-bill-would-make-our-communities-less-safe%2F316565002%2F&psig=AOvVaw1B_D3GKcuv0K_44WSl7rzX&ust=1546233564730360
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Straight from that very liberal flyover state.
Iowa police chiefs: ‘Sanctuary City’ bill would make our communities less safe

Most significant, the proposed bill would diminish the trust that keeps our cities safe in the first place. We depend on residents, including immigrants, to come to us when they see something suspicious or potentially criminal. If they hear of a looming “crackdown” that could affect their families and friends, they are less likely to come to us to report and prevent actual crimes. Our state’s growing immigrant population — about 150,000 individuals, or 5 percent of Iowa residents — will be confused and scared by this bill. We believe SF 481 would undo all the relational trust and goodwill we have built over many years.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi8mpiE58bfAhWwVN8KHenTDxwQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.desmoinesregister.com%2Fstor y%2Fopinion%2Fcolumnists%2Fiowa-view%2F2018%2F02%2F08%2Fiowa-police-chiefs-sanctuary-city-bill-would-make-our-communities-less-safe%2F316565002%2F&psig=AOvVaw1B_D3GKcuv0K_44WSl7rzX&ust=1546233564730360
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice story, has nothing to do with what Jim asked, but it's a nice story none the less
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Iowa isn’t liberal. Hell I just left there this afternoon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice story, has nothing to do with what Jim asked, but it's a nice story none the less
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Check your glasses.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Check your glasses.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Check your reading comprehension
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice story, has nothing to do with what Jim asked, but it's a nice story none the less
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You’re right it’s not a poll, if you read the article I attached it has a pretty clear explanation of what the police chiefs are concerned about.
As usual it’s not sound bite simple.
What Jim said was
“show me a poll, please, that says police chiefs favor these laws, you just make crap up that serves your ideology.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Roughly 100 people died in the USA from gun violence each day including the day that cop was killed.
Who killed the other 99 that day and all of them on other days?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about locally, how many times do we see someone killing a pour sole while operating under the influence and it’s their 3rd, 4th or 5th offense. Repeat offenders in this country that are allowed to slip through our legal system are a bigger issue than the odd illegal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about locally, how many times do we see someone killing a pour sole while operating under the influence and it’s their 3rd, 4th or 5th offense. Repeat offenders in this country that are allowed to slip through our legal system are a bigger issue than the odd illegal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I oppose the killing of pour soles by drunks....

Nice story, has nothing to do with what Jim asked, but it's a nice story none the less
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

have you noticed that they never, ever respond to the question that’s asked?

they can’t. when my beliefs can’t stand up to the weight of such an obvious simple question, that’s the day i change my beliefs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about locally, how many times do we see someone killing a pour sole while operating under the influence and it’s their 3rd, 4th or 5th offense. Repeat offenders in this country that are allowed to slip through our legal system are a bigger issue than the odd illegal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
is anyone saying we should
only prosecute illegals who get dui, but ignore citizens who get dui’s? why not punish everyone who drives drunk?

no one said that illegals are driving the dui epidemic. once again, responding to something that no one came close to saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Roughly 100 people died in the USA from gun violence each day including the day that cop was killed.
Who killed the other 99 that day and all of them on other days?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
oh FFS are you serious? where is it said we can’t deal with more than
one thing at the same time?

your ideology created the environment which killed this cop.

pete, would
you really oppose a law which said that illegals
who get two dui’s here, get deported?

let me answer for you. If Hilary proposed that law, you’d be for it. because Trump supports it, you oppose it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Straight from that very liberal flyover state.
Iowa police chiefs: ‘Sanctuary City’ bill would make our communities less safe

Most significant, the proposed bill would diminish the trust that keeps our cities safe in the first place. We depend on residents, including immigrants, to come to us when they see something suspicious or potentially criminal. If they hear of a looming “crackdown” that could affect their families and friends, they are less likely to come to us to report and prevent actual crimes. Our state’s growing immigrant population — about 150,000 individuals, or 5 percent of Iowa residents — will be confused and scared by this bill. We believe SF 481 would undo all the relational trust and goodwill we have built over many years.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi8mpiE58bfAhWwVN8KHenTDxwQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.desmoinesregister.com%2Fstor y%2Fopinion%2Fcolumnists%2Fiowa-view%2F2018%2F02%2F08%2Fiowa-police-chiefs-sanctuary-city-bill-would-make-our-communities-less-safe%2F316565002%2F&psig=AOvVaw1B_D3GKcuv0K_44WSl7rzX&ust=1546233564730360
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s one guy. one. i’ve seen what the police chief where this guy got killed, has to say about smcthaty policies, he said “this is no way to protect a community.”

Spence said large numbers of law enforcement support sanctuary policies. as usual, he provided zero evidence. he really wants it to be true. that’s not evidence that it is true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is a poll, done by Harvard ( heretofore not known to be a subsidiary of Foxnews nor a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers. In this poll, 80 % of respondents said
local law enforcement should be required to tell ICE about illegals who commit crimes. Eighty percent.

Thank god those 80% have liberals to ignore our will, because they know better than we do about such things. That will be a tremendous comfort to this cops widow
and 5 month old
child, who now enjoys all the benefits of not having a dad. who needs all that toxic masculinity anyway?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/28/do-80-percent-of-americans-oppose-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.8cc1ea3f00f1
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, let’s get to the heart of this. if there was a proposed
law which said that illegal
immigrants who get multiple dui’s will be turned over to ICE for deportation...you’d oppose such a law. Correct? Because allowing these people to stay here, makes us safer. Right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s one guy. one. i’ve seen what the police chief where this guy got killed, has to say about smcthaty policies, he said “this is no way to protect a community.”

Spence said large numbers of law enforcement support sanctuary policies. as usual, he provided zero evidence. he really wants it to be true. that’s not evidence that it is true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
As usual you assume and accuse
You didn’t read the article just your typical Trumplicans good, any failure to toe the party line bad.
Any opportunity to create fear by demonizing some subset (illegal immigrants, Democrats, Media, Muslims, your side) is good and the base of victims would surrender some rights and eventually all to be protected by the almighty Trump

Here’s the part you missed
The bill is meant to ensure community safety, but it would strain relationships with the communities we serve and protect.

We speak as leaders with 62 combined years of law enforcement experience. As such, we know how precious energy and resources are for our state’s police departments. Iowa’s proposed crackdown on sanctuary cities is a waste of resources, because it addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. There are no sanctuary cities in Iowa. Our state’s local law enforcement already works with federal authorities on criminal investigations. The bill requires police to alert Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of arrests of illegal immigrants, and that system is already in place and automated. In the majority of cases, ICE doesn’t respond to local arrests.
Beyond the bill’s inefficiency, it introduces a dangerous infringement on local control of local issues. It legislates policy in an arena where no other policy is legislated, such as use of force, proper equipment, and standards of conduct. It asks local law enforcement to address an issue that is best left to federal authorities. Creating and enforcing immigration laws is the purview of our federal partners. Asking local and state law enforcement to enforce immigration laws puts a strain on already strapped police units. We simply don’t have the training or time to enforce federal immigration policy.

Most significant, the proposed bill would diminish the trust that keeps our cities safe in the first place. We depend on residents, including immigrants, to come to us when they see something suspicious or potentially criminal. If they hear of a looming “crackdown” that could affect their families and friends, they are less likely to come to us to report and prevent actual crimes. Our state’s growing immigrant population — about 150,000 individuals, or 5 percent of Iowa residents — will be confused and scared by this bill. We believe SF 481 would undo all the relational trust and goodwill we have built over many years.



We want Iowa residents to trust us and cooperate with us so that all of our communities are safer. Legislation like this drives hard-working, law-abiding immigrants back into the shadows.

Instead of a shortsighted and counterproductive bill like SF 481, we encourage our federal lawmakers to continue seeking comprehensive immigration reform. We urge leaders of both political parties to create a broad, bipartisan coalition and act urgently to pass better immigration laws. Doing so will strengthen the economy, promote strong national borders, and allow immigrants to become participants in creating safety and security in all of our communities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh FFS are you serious? where is it said we can’t deal with more than
one thing at the same time?

your ideology created the environment which killed this cop.

pete, would
you really oppose a law which said that illegals
who get two dui’s here, get deported?

let me answer for you. If Hilary proposed that law, you’d be for it. because Trump supports it, you oppose it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think it’s interesting that the rest of the 350,000 people killed by gun violence each year don’t faze you, but one policeman gets murdered by an immigrant and that’s an emergency.
Don’t assume you can answer for me, fool
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it’s interesting that the rest of the 350,000 people killed by gun violence each year don’t faze you, but one policeman gets murdered by an immigrant and that’s an emergency.
Don’t assume you can answer for me, fool
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
on what possible
basis would
you assume
i’m unfazed by the other victims
of gun violence? if i don’t mention them in every post on every topic, that means i am unfazed?

i read every word
if your article. it said that law abiding immigrants would
go
into the shadows if we
deported criminals. tough cookies.
that was
one police chief. spence said “so
many” support
the
sanctuary policies. he didn’t mention any. how come?

the police chiefs who wrote that piece also said that state cops aren’t trained
to enforce federal immigration law. we’re talking about having iowa cops call the feds, and tell them
they have an illegal who committed a crime. if iowa cops cannot be trained to do this, then i submit that they need to raise the IQ requirements to be a cop on Iowa.

that chief
if police
could
also be a fanatical liberal, which is why you don’t hang your
hat on what one guy says. i shared a poll that said that 80% oppose
sanctuary policies. it was a harvard poll, not a fox news poll. 80% isn’t very ambiguous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is anyone saying we should
only prosecute illegals who get dui, but ignore citizens who get dui’s? why not punish everyone who drives drunk?

no one said that illegals are driving the dui epidemic. once again, responding to something that no one came close to saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Point I was making was, DUI is a national issue, not an illegal immigration issue. Yesterday coming off cape from playing golf in Hyannis a guy maybe in his 50's almost side swipes me as he passed me and after watching him almost go off the road three times, I called 911 and bourne police then patched me through to the state police. This guy was hammered and an accident just waiting to happen and I backed way off as he went up on the bridge and he came within an inch from pounding into the tall curb, which likely would have shot his small SUV right back across into oncoming traffic. Our legal system just isn't doing the job to keep these repeat offenders off our roads and most are US citizens not illegal immigrants. Again, I'm all for reporting criminals to ICE if illegal, you want to be a US citizen, then you better have respect for our laws. If not send them home.

Point I was making was, DUI is a national issue, not an illegal immigration issue. Yesterday coming off cape from playing golf in Hyannis a guy maybe in his 50's almost side swipes me as he passed me and after watching him almost go off the road three times, I called 911 and bourne police then patched me through to the state police. This guy was hammered and an accident just waiting to happen and I backed way off as he went up on the bridge and he came within an inch from pounding into the tall curb, which likely would have shot his small SUV right back across into oncoming traffic. Our legal system just isn't doing the job to keep these repeat offenders off our roads and most are US citizens not illegal immigrants. Again, I'm all for reporting criminals to ICE if illegal, you want to be a US citizen, then you better have respect for our laws. If not send them home.
nobody said dui is an immigration issue. there is one issue, one. is it good policy to let illegals
stay, after they continue to commit crimes here? that’s the only question.

no one is saying all
immigrants are bad, or all drunks, or all cop
killers. no one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nobody said dui is an immigration issue. there is one issue, one. is it good policy to let illegals
stay, after they continue to commit crimes here? that’s the only question.

no one is saying all
immigrants are bad, or all drunks, or all cop
killers. no one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nobody except POTUS
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nobody except POTUS
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not true, and not relevant. he said
many are fine people. in the same talk where he said there are rapists and drug dealers, he said
many are fine people. why is it that your side always leaves that part out?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not true, and not relevant. he said
many are fine people. in the same talk where he said there are rapists and drug dealers, he said
many are fine people. why is it that your side always leaves that part out?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well if I hear 100:1 ratio of the bad to good references from him, it’s hard to hear the one. His MO is say it enough times and people will believe it, pick a phrase he has repeated adnausium and the pattern is clear.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is one issue, one. is it good policy to let illegals stay, after they continue to commit crimes here? that’s the only question.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but somehow, there are people who disagree. it’s our inability to agree on things this obvious, which makes me sad that i don’t know what unites us anymore.

people are passing laws
forbidding local cops
with alerting ICE to illegals
who commit crime. Do we have a supremacy clause or
not? what does it mean, why was it written?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

people are passing laws
forbidding local cops
with alerting ICE to illegals
who commit crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well, this isn’t really true. Even in CA which has the broadest sanctuary law anywhere there are like 800 crimes that are exempt. The point is to not focus on the petty stuff in exchange for better cooperation with the local PD and make a safer environment for everyone.

If an illegal is caught committing a violent crime, running drugs, a serious threat to safety etc... there’s nothing stopping local PD from working with ICE.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, this isn’t really true. Even in CA which has the broadest sanctuary law anywhere there are like 800 crimes that are exempt. The point is to not focus on the petty stuff in exchange for better cooperation with the local PD and make a safer environment for everyone.

If an illegal is caught committing a violent crime, running drugs, a serious threat to safety etc... there’s nothing stopping local PD from working with ICE.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



So local police should overlook reporting an illegal if the illegal is committing a petty crime. Illegals should only be reported to ICE if they commit violent crimes. And if illegals commit no crimes, they also should not be reported to ICE.

I can see why the Dems want to eliminate ICE. The local police would incarcerate the illegals who commit violent crimes. The rest are not worth deporting just because they are illegal. If they're not committing violent crimes they have the perfect right to be here.

Not only is ICE irrelevant by that reasoning, immigration laws are also useless and unnecessary. What's all the fuss about reforming immigration laws? Just scrap them. Who needs a wall when their is no reason to keep people out. If they're violent, the local police will take care of it.

So local police should overlook reporting an illegal if the illegal is committing a petty crime. Illegals should only be reported to ICE if they commit violent crimes. And if illegals commit no crimes, they also should not be reported to ICE.

I can see why the Dems want to eliminate ICE. The local police would incarcerate the illegals who commit violent crimes. The rest are not worth deporting just because they are illegal. If they're not committing violent crimes they have the perfect right to be here.

Not only is ICE irrelevant by that reasoning, immigration laws are also useless and unnecessary. What's all the fuss about reforming immigration laws? Just scrap them. Who needs a wall when their is no reason to keep people out. If they're violent, the local police will take care of it.
Immigration law is federal jurisdiction, I think the local police can determine what works best in their municipalities. If you have an undocumented person working and paying taxes, hell maybe they even have a few kids that are US citizens, deporting them and breaking up the family because they got a speeding ticket isn’t going to benefit the community, even worse if they can be a witness to a crime they’re afraid to report for fear of deportation.

Need comprehensive reform.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, this isn’t really true. Even in CA which has the broadest sanctuary law anywhere there are like 800 crimes that are exempt. The point is to not focus on the petty stuff in exchange for better cooperation with the local PD and make a safer environment for everyone.

If an illegal is caught committing a violent crime, running drugs, a serious threat to safety etc... there’s nothing stopping local PD from working with ICE.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Astounding!

DUI is not a serious threat to safety? People die every day from drunk drivers. What makes you think this way? Petty?
You obviously don’t get it

If law enforcement is not going to enforce law, why should we follow the laws? You and the rest of them are deplorable.

I should not have to go through life worried about some illegal alien criminal driving into me or worse because some liberal politicians decided it would be too much of an inconvenience for local PD to make a phone call. WTF planet do you live in?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Astounding!

DUI is not a serious threat to safety? People die every day from drunk drivers. What makes you think this way? Petty?
You obviously don’t get it

If law enforcement is not going to enforce law, why should we follow the laws? You and the rest of them are deplorable.

I should not have to go through life worried about some illegal alien criminal driving into me or worse because some liberal politicians decided it would be too much of an inconvenience for local PD to make a phone call. WTF planet do you live in?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
DUI is still a misdemeanor in most cases, how many members of Congress have got them or even President? Doesn’t mean it’s not serious but please...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

10,0000 deaths per year isn’t petty and ANYONE drinking and driving and taking life should be prosecuted, or deported; wrong is wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, this isn’t really true. Even in CA which has the broadest sanctuary law anywhere there are like 800 crimes that are exempt. The point is to not focus on the petty stuff in exchange for better cooperation with the local PD and make a safer environment for everyone.

If an illegal is caught committing a violent crime, running drugs, a serious threat to safety etc... there’s nothing stopping local PD from working with ICE.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but CA law prohibited cops from telling ICE about his two DUIs. why is that good policy? that’s the only issue here, i’m asking for the third time why it’s a good idea. what will it take for you to answer that question, as i asked it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DUI is still a misdemeanor in most cases, how many members of Congress have got them or even President? Doesn’t mean it’s not serious but please...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if there is one, it is one too many

this response is beyond deplorable

If this country had any balls, we would deport criminals

Jim, he thinks is just a misdemeanor so thru the revolving door to the streets they go just like a regular American, no big deal.

The actual answer is there is NO justification NONE, he has no answer and neither does Pete

This is why we ended up with Trump
People are fed up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QurcAFMNAWs

2 minutes and 25 seconds well worth listening

America, WAKE UP

Immigration law is federal jurisdiction, I think the local police can determine what works best in their municipalities. If you have an undocumented person working and paying taxes, hell maybe they even have a few kids that are US citizens, deporting them and breaking up the family because they got a speeding ticket isn’t going to benefit the community, even worse if they can be a witness to a crime they’re afraid to report for fear of deportation.

Need comprehensive reform.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In spite of your use of official, harmless sounding phrases like "undocumented," and meaningless ones like "Comprehensive reform" to indicate that you might consider that something is a wee bit wrong with what you consider much too harsh to call "illegal," what you say here, if you were explicit and "comprehensive," is not really different than what I said: "immigration laws are . . . useless and unnecessary. What's all the fuss about reforming immigration laws? Just scrap them. Who needs a wall when their is no reason to keep people out. If they're violent, the local police will take care of it." "If they're not committing violent crimes they have the perfect right to be here." After all, as you say, "local police can determine what works best in their municipalities."

The bread crumb you throw to the federal bureaucracy: "Immigration law is federal jurisdiction" is superfluous, irrelevant, even a contradiction to your saying " If you have an undocumented person working and paying taxes, hell maybe they even have a few kids that are US citizens, deporting them and breaking up the family because they got a speeding ticket isn’t going to benefit the community". What you said is an affirmation that they have a right to be here. That there is actually no reason to stop them from coming here.

And if it is, as you say, "even worse if they can be a witness to a crime they’re afraid to report for fear of deportation," that even more supports the idea that they have the right to be here. After all, they shouldn't, as you suggest, have to be afraid of deportation for doing the same thing that a "documented" or "legal" person would do in reporting the same crime.

So, for you, if immigration is ultimately not a question of law but of procedure, documentation (and even that is not really necessary if the "undocumented" haven't committed a violent crime) then border enforcement and immigration law are a waste of resources. If no law is broken by crossing the border without being documented, and staying here indefinitely, and being here in no way different than "legally" residing citizens with all the inherent rights and privileges, then little needs to be done to "comprehensively" reform immigration law other than scrapping most of it, if not all of it.

On the other hand, if law is broken, then penalty must follow. If we can impeach a President for misdemeanors, who among us, especially law breakers, should get a free pass?

Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings,

The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally,

how is the wall going to fix that?

Just another example of Trump's base buying into the misinformation and fear.. of brown people


Ryan would give visas to Irish workers,:btu:


why do conservatives scream states rights when it suits them? ... But dont support states rights to not to enforces federal immigration (misdemeanors ) and detentions without reimbursement ... even in mass we bring people to federal court on ICE detainers so again the lie sold by the right is again just more misinformation .. you see it in gun control... the right calls it confiscation or any other argument on any topic the rights core element is fear ..

Spence, you said local
police can determine what works best in their
municipalities. but the
local police aren’t allowed to exercise that judgment, because
liberal politicians pass laws to take that ability away from them. they cannot contact ICE even if they wanted to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Point I was making was, DUI is a national issue, not an illegal immigration issue. Yesterday coming off cape from playing golf in Hyannis a guy maybe in his 50's almost side swipes me as he passed me and after watching him almost go off the road three times, I called 911 and bourne police then patched me through to the state police. This guy was hammered and an accident just waiting to happen and I backed way off as he went up on the bridge and he came within an inch from pounding into the tall curb, which likely would have shot his small SUV right back across into oncoming traffic. Our legal system just isn't doing the job to keep these repeat offenders off our roads and most are US citizens not illegal immigrants. Again, I'm all for reporting criminals to ICE if illegal, you want to be a US citizen, then you better have respect for our laws. If not send them home.
Well said about reporting to ICE. I can't believe I live in a country in which the mayor of a major city - Oakland - can get away with doing just the opposite .... "Hey you illegals, especially those of you who are criminals, look out. ICE is coming". Why isn't she in jail?

If you have an undocumented person working and paying taxes, hell maybe they even have a few kids that are US citizens, deporting them and breaking up the family because they got a speeding ticket isn’t going to benefit the community, Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let me tell you, when you have to distort the facts to this degree to avoid making your position look stupid, maybe it's time to re-think your position. You make it sound like this guy was Ward Cleaver who happened to get caught going 56mph in a 55mph zone by a racist cop.

Spence, for the FOURTH TIME NOW, would you oppose a law which said illegals get deported if they have multiple DUIs?

We probably agree that illegals who commit violent felonies get deported. And I presume we agree that illegals (especially the fictional one you described here, who is working to support a family) who gets caught speeding, I'm OK with not automatically deporting these people.

This guy was not even close to what you described, which makes me curious why you went to a hypothetical that bears zero resemblance to what we are discussing here. I mean, I know exactly why you did it, but I wonder why you'd say you did it?

Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings,

The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally,

how is the wall going to fix that?

Just another example of Trump's base buying into the misinformation and fear.. of brown people


Ryan would give visas to Irish workers,:btu:


why do conservatives scream states rights when it suits them? ... But dont support states rights to not to enforces federal immigration (misdemeanors ) and detentions without reimbursement ... even in mass we bring people to federal court on ICE detainers so again the lie sold by the right is again just more misinformation .. you see it in gun control... the right calls it confiscation or any other argument on any topic the rights core element is fear ..

"The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally,

how is the wall going to fix that?"

So unless the wall can fix every aspect of immigration, as well as cure cancer, it's not worth building?

People still escape from prison despite the existence of prison guards, so should we do away with prison guards (see what I did there? I used your "logic").

No ne said the wall was perfect, and that it would reduce illegal immigration to zero. What people are saying (thoughtful, sane people that is),is that it will help. I keep seeing that between 1,000 and 3,000 people a day cross the border. Some of them will have the ability to bypass a wall. Some will not. The wall will help. It won't reduce the number of people crossing illegally to zero, but it will reduce it from where it is today.

It's obvious common sense. You really disagree with that?

"The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally,

how is the wall going to fix that?"

So unless the wall can fix every aspect of immigration, as well as cure cancer, it's not worth building?

People still escape from prison despite the existence of prison guards, so should we do away with prison guards (see what I did there? I used your "logic").

No ne said the wall was perfect, and that it would reduce illegal immigration to zero. What people are saying (thoughtful, sane people that is),is that it will help. I keep seeing that between 1,000 and 3,000 people a day cross the border. Some of them will have the ability to bypass a wall. Some will not. The wall will help. It won't reduce the number of people crossing illegally to zero, but it will reduce it from where it is today.

It's obvious common sense. You really disagree with that?

There is no wall. There won’t be a wall. Read the news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no wall. There won’t be a wall. Read the news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said there would be. I said if there was a wall, it would reduce, but not eliminate, illegal immigration. And I said that just because an idea isn't perfect and doesn't solve every problem in the world and make us all immortal, doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

When courts legalize gay marriage, it didn't solve all problems that gays face. I still think it was the right thing to do.

The liberal arguments here, are laughably absurd. Read them, and think honestly about them for a minute. Because the wall won't reduce illegal immigration to zero, that means its not a good idea? we have laws against murder, but people still get murdered. So should we do away with those laws?

When courts legalize gay marriage, it didn't solve all problems that gays face. I still think it was the right thing to do.

The only problems gays face are dealing with #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s who refuse to accept them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only problems gays face are dealing with #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s who refuse to accept them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point was, no idea is perfect or flawless or impossible to weasel around. So you can't shoot down the wall, by saying that some people will be able to go over or under it.

You shut your doors at night? If so, why? A master thief can still get in if he really wants to, right? Shutting your door doesn't guarantee that an intruder won't get in. But you do it anyway, and you'd be stupid not to do it.

My point was, no idea is perfect or flawless or impossible to weasel around. So you can't shoot down the wall, by saying that some people will be able to go over or under it.

You shut your doors at night? If so, why? A master thief can still get in if he really wants to, right? Shutting your door doesn't guarantee that an intruder won't get in. But you do it anyway, and you'd be stupid not to do it.

I don’t live my life in fear. You should consider that path. Happiness and love sets you free.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t live my life in fear. You should consider that path. Happiness and love sets you free.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you shut your door and at night, yes or no?

Love it when you ask the simplest question in the world, and get a dodge for an answer...

I don’t live my life in fear. You should consider that path. Happiness and love sets you free.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The 60's called, they want their domestic policy back. :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The 60's called, they want their domestic policy back. :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🙃
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but CA law prohibited cops from telling ICE about his two DUIs. why is that good policy? that’s the only issue here, i’m asking for the third time why it’s a good idea. what will it take for you to answer that question, as i asked it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
We know he was arrested twice for DUI but I don’t know if he was ever convicted. If the DUIs didn’t have aggravating factors I’m not sure that just because he’s illegal makes much of a difference. If he got a third he could have faced harsher charges that didn’t have any protection.

You have to draw a line somewhere. DUI is probably on the upper end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The liberal arguments here, are laughably absurd. Read them, and think honestly about them for a minute. Because the wall won't reduce illegal immigration to zero, that means its not a good idea? we have laws against murder, but people still get murdered. So should we do away with those laws?
I’ve never heard anyone try any make this argument.

Even the govt’s own study last year concluded we didn’t need a wall. It’s a campaign stunt not immigration policy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings,

The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally,

Just another example of Trump's base buying into the misinformation and fear.. of brown people

The first point is completely and totally false.

The second point is mind blowing stupid.If they're here without authorization they are not here legally.How they arrived here is irrelevant.

The fear of "brown" people?Talk about broadening the race card.The the vast majority of all US citizens can claim "brown" status.With my ethnic heritage I'm the "brownest" guy on this site!

Much like your "what if" thread you might want to check back in with reality.

The first point is completely and totally false.

The second point is mind blowing stupid.If they're here without authorization they are not here legally.How they arrived here is irrelevant.

The fear of "brown" people?Talk about broadening the race card.The the vast majority of all US citizens can claim "brown" status.With my ethnic heritage I'm the "brownest" guy on this site!

Much like your "what if" thread you might want to check back in with reality.
No, I’m pretty sure close to 60% of illegal aliens are people who have overstayed VISAs rather than made illegal border crossings.

Same goes for illegal drugs, only a small fraction is smuggled over land, most all comes through ports.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have to draw a line somewhere. DUI is probably on the upper end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Upper end of what you'd be OK forgiving? Multiple DUIs?

"The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally,

how is the wall going to fix that?"

So unless the wall can fix every aspect of immigration, as well as cure cancer, it's not worth building?

People still escape from prison despite the existence of prison guards, so should we do away with prison guards (see what I did there? I used your "logic").

No ne said the wall was perfect, and that it would reduce illegal immigration to zero. What people are saying (thoughtful, sane people that is),is that it will help. I keep seeing that between 1,000 and 3,000 people a day cross the border. Some of them will have the ability to bypass a wall. Some will not. The wall will help. It won't reduce the number of people crossing illegally to zero, but it will reduce it from where it is today.

It's obvious common sense. You really disagree with that?


Trump is the only person in the conversation lacking common sense

that a Wall doesn’t work. It does, and properly built, almost 100%! They say it’s old technology - but so is the wheel.

or “Jeb Bush just talked about my border proposal to build a ‘fence,’” he tweeted. “It’s not a fence, Jeb, it’s a WALL, and there’s a BIG difference!” or President and Mrs. Obama built/has a ten foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The U.S. needs the same thing, slightly larger version!

...The Wall will be paid for, directly or indirectly, or through longer term reimbursement, by Mexico, to bad there is no wall around the house

we could go all day now his people are backpedaling again

“To be honest, it’s not a wall,” Kelly said, adding that the mix of technological enhancements and “steel slat” barriers the president now wants along the border resulted from conversations with law enforcement professionals.

Graham “the wall has become a metaphor for border security” and referred to “a physical barrier along the border.”

this is my favorite to bad he might not have said it but i can't be 100 % Sure

The first point is completely and totally false.

The second point is mind blowing stupid.If they're here without authorization they are not here legally.How they arrived here is irrelevant.

The fear of "brown" people?Talk about broadening the race card.The the vast majority of all US citizens can claim "brown" status.With my ethnic heritage I'm the "brownest" guy on this site!

Much like your "what if" thread you might want to check back in with reality.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/08/07/dhs-foreigners-overstayed-visas-2017/924316002/

Homeland Security: More than 600,000 foreigners overstayed U.S. visas in 2017

here is reality Trump and his administration have focused far more on building a wall along the southern border with Mexico,

why would that be??????

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/08/07/dhs-foreigners-overstayed-visas-2017/924316002/

Homeland Security: More than 600,000 foreigners overstayed U.S. visas in 2017

here is reality Trump and his administration have focused far more on building a wall along the southern border with Mexico,

why would that be??????

Your article points out, rather quietly, that Trump addressed the overstay problem, and that the numbers have gone down since 2016.

Why do you say that the administration has focused far more on building a wall? It focused on the overstay and Congress has quietly implemented, as your article states, the "biometric entry-exit tracking system that would better monitor foreigners who legally visit the United States. Completion of that system, which uses fingerprints and iris scans to more accurately capture when people enter and exit the country, was included in an executive order he signed shortly after being sworn in as president."

But Congress is not cooperating on the wall, that's why the focus seems to be so large on building the wall.

No, I’m pretty sure close to 60% of illegal aliens are people who have overstayed VISAs rather than made illegal border crossings.

Same goes for illegal drugs, only a small fraction is smuggled over land, most all comes through ports.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fact Check.org has quoted the estimate that about 44% of the "undocumented population" are those who overstayed their visas.

Of Course, government "estimates" are ridiculously low for various reasons (political to hiding incompetence). There are probably way, way, more illegals than the low ball official estimates.

In any case, whether the % is visa overstay or border crossing, either is a large number and both have to be addressed, as has been the visa overstay issue.

We know he was arrested twice for DUI but I don’t know if he was ever convicted. If the DUIs didn’t have aggravating factors I’m not sure that just because he’s illegal makes much of a difference. If he got a third he could have faced harsher charges that didn’t have any protection.

Yay, you said "illegal", :claps::claps: but, then, of course, you question if being illegal makes any difference. The premise being . . . oh, I dunno . . . that he actually has the right to be here?

You have to draw a line somewhere. DUI is probably on the upper end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about being illegal is the line?

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) says Pelosi & Schumer have "blood on their hands" for refusing to secure the border: “Democrats have an open borders philosophy, they don’t believe in border security, they believe this is the way to change the American electorate in order to win elections.”

And once again as if on cue the conspiracy theory's flow

Your article points out, rather quietly, that Trump addressed the overstay problem, and that the numbers have gone down since 2016.

Why do you say that the administration has focused far more on building a wall? It focused on the overstay and Congress has quietly implemented, as your article states, the "biometric entry-exit tracking system that would better monitor foreigners who legally visit the United States. Completion of that system, which uses fingerprints and iris scans to more accurately capture when people enter and exit the country, was included in an executive order he signed shortly after being sworn in as president."

But Congress is not cooperating on the wall, that's why the focus seems to be so large on building the wall.

Despite those gradual improvements, the report acknowledges that there is "no specific cause that can be directly attributed to the decrease in overstay rates" in 2017. Guess you missed that

and executive orders once deemed bad are not a replacement for legislation .. which some how could not be passed by his own party ...

I’ve never heard anyone try any make this argument.

Even the govt’s own study last year concluded we didn’t need a wall. It’s a campaign stunt not immigration policy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I’ve never heard anyone try any make this argument."

Everyone is making that argument, saying that people can circumvent the wall by going under or over. Using that logic, we should all leave our doors wide open at night, because some burglars know how to bypass deadbolts.

yOu used a different argument, that "so many" police chiefs support it. But you provided zero evidence to support that made up, self serving statement.

The wall is a campaign stunt? I'd bet my life, in return for 50 cents on your end, that you didn't say that when Schumer and Bernie supported a wall. Was it merely a campaign stunt then?

Spence, do you have ANY principles. other than agree with what liberals are saying at the moment? Is that literally the only thing that guides you?

I don't know that we "need" a wall. But it would help reduce illegal immigration.

Despite those gradual improvements, the report acknowledges that there is "no specific cause that can be directly attributed to the decrease in overstay rates" in 2017. Guess you missed that

No I didn't miss that. I also did not miss that the administration addressed the problem and that the overstay rates decreased. "Specific" causes often cannot be verified. If you cannot verify a specific cause then you cannot specifically say that desired results are not caused by an implemented policy. If you don't know why the good thing happened, you cannot categorically say that it was not the result of the policy.

Of course, if you want to slant in the direction that the policy was not the cause, you can weasel word your denial by saying that you cannot "attribute" the connection, rather than definitively saying that the policy was absolutely not the cause.

I responded to your accusation or implication that Trump was focusing "far more" on the wall and why was that so. The administration addressed the overstay problem, and the problem decreased. Spin it however you want, but the fact remains.

and executive orders once deemed bad are not a replacement for legislation .. which some how could not be passed by his own party ...

His party did pass wall funding in the House. The Senate required the other party's help--which was not given.

And executive orders are bad or wrong only when they order something that does not fall within the purview of Article 2 of the Constitution. That is still the case, regardless of who trespasses that restraint, nor of which party allows it to stand. Unfortunately, party power concerns and judicial corruption and inertia have been letting the abuse stand.

That's one of the reasons that the Constitution is barely hanging on, as they say, by a thread--or a few threads.

Interesting article in the LA Times on a new migration pattern:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/migrant-families-shift-to-dangerous-desert-crossings/ar-BBRGhbn?ocid=spartanntp

How about being illegal is the line?
Well then you’d just be back to the situation sanctuary laws were employed for in the first place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fact Check.org has quoted the estimate that about 44% of the "undocumented population" are those who overstayed their visas.

Of Course, government "estimates" are ridiculously low for various reasons (political to hiding incompetence). There are probably way, way, more illegals than the low ball official estimates.

In any case, whether the % is visa overstay or border crossing, either is a large number and both have to be addressed, as has been the visa overstay issue.
I think 44 percent is the overall population with the ratio being much higher in recent years. Likely a result of illegal border crossings being so historically low the last decade.

Still, it’s roughly half which supports wdmso’s statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I’ve never heard anyone try any make this argument."

Everyone is making that argument, saying that people can circumvent the wall by going under or over. Using that logic, we should all leave our doors wide open at night, because some burglars know how to bypass deadbolts.

yOu used a different argument, that "so many" police chiefs support it. But you provided zero evidence to support that made up, self serving statement.

The wall is a campaign stunt? I'd bet my life, in return for 50 cents on your end, that you didn't say that when Schumer and Bernie supported a wall. Was it merely a campaign stunt then?

Spence, do you have ANY principles. other than agree with what liberals are saying at the moment? Is that literally the only thing that guides you?

I don't know that we "need" a wall. But it would help reduce illegal immigration.
Since when were Schumer and Sanders big wall proponents?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think 44 percent is the overall population with the ratio being much higher in recent years. Likely a result of illegal border crossings being so historically low the last decade.

This is very authoritative sounding verbal mish mash.

Still, it’s roughly half which supports wdmso’s statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When dealing with millions, 44% vs. 50% is a big difference. And its way different than the 60% you were pretty sure of. But, in any case, either is huge in itself and needs fixing. Comparison, any way, is irrelevant. Fixing one is not at the expense of the other. The border problem needs its own solution. Trying to compare it to another problem in a negative way does not diminish it. It's just a misdirection attempting to disparage the need for a wall.

Well then you’d just be back to the situation sanctuary laws were employed for in the first place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are we not at that situation now? Actually being illegal puts a huge crimp in the notion that something is not illegal. Being here illegally is contrary to being here as if you have a right to be here and to being protected from discovery and deportation.

Without explicitly saying so, just about everything you say to justify the protection of and aid to illegal immigrants amounts to the notion, if not the actual fact, that they have a right to be here. It basically supports the idea of open borders. It would be more respectful if you admitted that rather than couching your thoughts in elusive language.

Since when were Schumer and Sanders big wall proponents?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Secure Fence Act of 2006. unless you’re one of those who say a fence and a wall aren’t the same thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When dealing with millions, 44% vs. 50% is a big difference. And its way different than the 60% you were pretty sure of. But, in any case, either is huge in itself and needs fixing. Comparison, any way, is irrelevant. Fixing one is not at the expense of the other. The border problem needs its own solution. Trying to compare it to another problem in a negative way does not diminish it. It's just a misdirection attempting to disparage the need for a wall.
It’s not a misdirection, rather it highlights Trump’s motivation is mostly political.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are we not at that situation now? Actually being illegal puts a huge crimp in the notion that something is not illegal. Being here illegally is contrary to being here as if you have a right to be here and to being protected from discovery and deportation.

Without explicitly saying so, just about everything you say to justify the protection of and aid to illegal immigrants amounts to the notion, if not the actual fact, that they have a right to be here. It basically supports the idea of open borders. It would be more respectful if you admitted that rather than couching your thoughts in elusive language.
It doesn’t mean they have a specific right to be here, but it’s an acceptance they they are here, they are an important part of our economy and their presence as undocumented isn’t a crime. It’s a complex systems issue not something you can just boil down to extremes. Reagan understood this, HW understood this, Clinton understood this, W understood this and Obama understood this. Trump, not so much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Secure Fence Act of 2006. unless you’re one of those who say a fence and a wall aren’t the same thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I’m giggling
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m giggling
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haha
Love this post
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Secure Fence Act of 2006. unless you’re one of those who say a fence and a wall aren’t the same thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Aug 25, 2015 07:39:01 AM Jeb Bush just talked about my border proposal to build a "fence." It's not a fence, Jeb, it's a WALL, and there's a BIG difference!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s not a misdirection, rather it highlights Trump’s motivation is mostly political.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, it is a misdirection from the wall to the overstays. Each has their own solutions. If it were, as you say, that there is a 50/50 split in how many of each are here, then each is equally important to solve. To deke from one to another as if to say the previous is not valid but merely political is deliberate misdirection.

And OMG, pointing out that a politician's motive is mostly political . . . what a revelation!!! Mostly any politician's motive is mostly political. Pelosi's and Schumer's motives are mostly political. Probably more mostly than Trump's.

(And BTW, "mostly" of something indicates there is more of other somethings. In this case, a need to control illegal border crossings. Your slippery, indefinite verbiage notwithstanding.)

It doesn’t mean they have a specific right to be here, but it’s an acceptance they they are here,

If not a "specific" right, then what "general" right do they have to be here? And why must we accept that they are here? If we must accept their being here, isn't that tantamount to saying that they have a right to be here?

they are an important part of our economy and their presence as undocumented isn’t a crime.

They distort our economy as well as straining the resources we have to serve "legal" residents. Our economy would work without them. It would, in my opinion, raise the value of the work they actually do if done by "legal" Americans who would demand higher wages. The so-called middle class problem we are supposed to be experiencing could be lessened. And our resources, including welfare care of all kinds would not be stretched to include the extra many millions of illegals.

And the issue is not criminal, it is "legal." Because something is illegal, doesn't mean it is necessarily a crime. They are illegal aliens. The apologetic rhetoric you always use to justify the difficulty we must go through to stop the flow of illegal residents reminds me of an immigration lawyer I dealt with who was really, when push came to shove, in favor of mass immigration from south of the border and from impoverished countries. He absolutely felt that they had a right to come and stay here and become citizens. He used the criminal and economic gibberish that you couch your apologetics with to make it sound legal and right. But he basically actually believes we have an obligation to accept the vast majority of them.

That he made his money off of them might be a factor, but I think his motives were "mostly" idealistic.

It’s a complex systems issue not something you can just boil down to extremes. Reagan understood this, HW understood this, Clinton understood this, W understood this and Obama understood this. Trump, not so much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do realize they all had "mostly" political motivations.

I’m giggling
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, a vague insult with nothing specific about why I was wrong. It's almost all you do.

Spence, let me ask you this...what's the most significant policy agenda item, on which you completely disagree with liberalism? I completely disagree with conservatives on gay marriage and the death penalty, and I have disagreements with conservatism on gun control and on the obligation to provide healthcare to everyone. I can think for myself, which is why I'd never agree 100% of the time with any one party.

How about you?

Again, a vague insult with nothing specific about why I was wrong. It's almost all you do.

Spence, let me ask you this...what's the most significant policy agenda item, on which you completely disagree with liberalism? I completely disagree with conservatives on gay marriage and the death penalty, and I have disagreements with conservatism on gun control and on the obligation to provide healthcare to everyone. I can think for myself, which is why I'd never agree 100% of the time with any one party.

How about you?
I don’t think of liberalism as some monolithic block. Mostly I’m a centrist, not a liberal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I’m pretty sure close to 60% of illegal aliens are people who have overstayed VISAs rather than made illegal border crossings.

Same goes for illegal drugs, only a small fraction is smuggled over land, most all comes through ports.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Completely false on both points.
.
Are you sure or just "pretty sure"?.Big difference between the two...one is an opinion and the other is a fact.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/08/07/dhs-foreigners-overstayed-visas-2017/924316002/

Homeland Security: More than 600,000 foreigners overstayed U.S. visas in 2017

here is reality Trump and his administration have focused far more on building a wall along the southern border with Mexico,

why would that be??????

USA Today...great source.What's next Factcheck.org?

And how many of those 600,00 reapplied,left or were booted?Much more than you will ever admit.Much,much more.

Reality.You need an incredibly large dose of it,but then again you waste your time wondering "what if" there was GoFundME in 1940?Or "I wish" it was like that or like this.All I can tell you is keep wondering what might have been and keep wishing your life away.

Reality.Once you start dealing with it your life will change for the better.

Completely false on both points.
.
Are you sure or just "pretty sure"?.Big difference between the two...one is an opinion and the other is a fact.

I don’t know about the relative number of immigrants but most drugs come thru ports of entry.
Definition: In general, a port of entry (POE) is a place where one may lawfully enter a country. It typically has border security staff and facilities to check passports and visas, and inspect luggage to assure that contraband is not imported.
When you only check 20% of the trucks cars ships and containers coming into the USA stuff slips through and high value drugs don’t take up that much room.
We’ve been losing the war on drugs for the past 50 years, it’s about time we looked at a different way of fighting it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device