United States Immigration

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2016, 11:28 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because it mentions Trump. Some people have gotten defensive about Trump posts (don't worry, not singling you out). 




If his most compelling stance is being hard on immigration and he abandons that, you lose the most compelling reason to get out and vote for him. I would equate it to Bernie suddenly saying "I'm going to soften up on Wall St, I'll work with them". 


Now my general question to all: Has Hillary said anything recently about immigration or is she just ignoring it. 

and I'll disagree with your assesment. Do you think if it were down to Bernie and Trump and Bernie said he was going to soften on Wall Street that he would lose votes to Trump? 

Not sure if she has or should; unless, more folks go to Trump because of his softened stance on immigration.

Oh and I wouldn't worry about folks getting defensive; they most likely just found humor in the OP declairing this thread is not to bash Trump, then does exactly that.

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2016, 09:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Huh?

My mistake.

Post deleted.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-25-2016, 09:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: 3) End birthright citizenship seems to be in opposition to Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States

He's trying to appeal to liberals.  He knows how much they hate it when we do things differently than Europe.

[BmorePat87]

(08-25-2016, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: and I'll disagree with your assesment. Do you think if it were down to Bernie and Trump and Bernie said he was going to soften on Wall Street that he would lose votes to Trump? 

Not sure if she has or should; unless, more folks go to Trump because of his softened stance on immigration.

Oh and I wouldn't worry about folks getting defensive; they most likely just found humor in the OP declairing this thread is not to bash Trump, then does exactly that.

No, I'm suggesting people would just not vote for him. If someone is turned off by one candidate, that doesn't mean they're going to vote for the other party.

I also haven't bashed Trump, I've kept my discussions pretty open. If you took me laughing at the declaration that Mexico will pay for the wall, which is a laughable and ***** stupid declaration, then maybe the disclaimer was for you. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-25-2016, 08:59 AM)xxlt Wrote: I don't think illegal immigration, legal immigration, path to citizenship, green cards, visas, or any related topic is on the average American's top 10 list of things they care about. For many it probably doesn't crack the top 50. 

This is indicative of one of Trumps many problems. He is campaigning on an issue that most people simply don't care about.

Speak for yourself, there's more than 1 to get the economy moving.
For example: Limiting H1B's is a good start to putting American's back to work and start rebuilding the middle class.
Agree or disagree?

(08-25-2016, 09:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: And here is Trump's.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform


3) End birthright citizenship seems to be in opposition to Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States

Error Mr Trump Hater,
Changing the laws of US Citizenship being granted by Jus Sanguinis from Jus Soli is not against the Constitution if that is what you are trying to infer here.

(08-25-2016, 09:28 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I know Mexico is paying for the wall... lol... ok, I'm good now, but will this suggestion of eliminating tax credits to illegal immigrants fund the estimated $400m needed a year to triple ICE? (Assuming they make an average of $40k with benefits). That doesn't account for the cost of housing them, holding a trial, and transporting them while in custody. Will it also cover the nearly $11.6 billion in taxes that illegals pay state and local governments a year or their contribution to payroll taxes that they do not collect on? Conservative estimates suggest illegal immigrants costs the tax payer over $100 billion a year. Opponents suggests this underestimates their contribution to the economy and in taxes. 

I just wonder if increasing our costs will actually be recouped. Is there an actual solution that saves us money? 

I don't expect Trump to build a wall, but I do expect him to recognize what the problems are.


First, do you understand that 93% of all Cocaine in the US comes directly from the US-Mexican border right?


https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/4.Cocaine.pdf
Today, cocaine is typically transported from Colombia to Mexico or Central America by sea (usually by Colombians) and then onwards by land to the United States and Canada (usually by Mexicans). The US authorities estimate that close to 90% of the cocaine entering the country crosses the US/Mexico land border, most of it entering the state of Texas and, to a lesser extent, California and Arizona.

Now back to the subject you are talking about:

How many more hospitals need to file bankruptcy or close before you realize that Illegals can't be denied medical attention and rarely if ever pay for it?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/illegal-immigrants-account-107-billion-nation-s-health-care-costs-data-show
That's $10.7 Billion annually from 2013 and rising.

That pretty much covers the $11.6 Billion you claim that they contribute via unclaimed taxes.

How much money do we spend annually on anchor babies schooling and medical and housing/food?

I did the math where Anchor Babies drain the Public School systems by $60 Billion+ annually. That's not including the cost of births, nor the SNAP we are giving to the babies family to keep them fed, nor the medical assistance. Rough estimate: $75 Billion in benefits.

Not to mention the amount of problems they put Americans thru with SSN Fraud by messing up people's taxes, retirement benefits, credit, etc.

And don't give me that crap about them doing jobs that American's won't. According to these two sites, American's are already doing the jobs they are doing.

http://cis.org/illegalImmigration-employment
http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2009/bigtable2.html

Now we have a big negative cost associated with them being here.

$75 Billion, what could we do with that kinda money on an annual basis?

1st year, build a wall, drastically reduce the amount of illegals and drugs flowing into the US and start fixing infrastructure.
2nd year, rebuild the US infrastructure
3rd year, rebuild the US infrastructure, etc

That's more jobs and money coming back in taxes as well.


So tell me again xxlt how addressing Illegal Immigration won't help the US Economy?

[xxlt]

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Speak for yourself, there's more than 1 to get the economy moving.
For example: Limiting H1B's is a good start to putting American's back to work and start rebuilding the middle class.
Agree or disagree?


Error Mr Trump Hater,
Changing the laws of US Citizenship being granted by Jus Sanguinis from Jus Soli is not against the Constitution if that is what you are trying to infer here.


I don't expect Trump to build a wall, but I do expect him to recognize what the problems are.


First, do you understand that 93% of all Cocaine in the US comes directly from the US-Mexican border right?


https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/4.Cocaine.pdf
Today, cocaine is typically transported from Colombia to Mexico or Central America by sea (usually by Colombians) and then onwards by land to the United States and Canada (usually by Mexicans). The US authorities estimate that close to 90% of the cocaine entering the country crosses the US/Mexico land border, most of it entering the state of Texas and, to a lesser extent, California and Arizona.

Now back to the subject you are talking about:

How many more hospitals need to file bankruptcy or close before you realize that Illegals can't be denied medical attention and rarely if ever pay for it?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/illegal-immigrants-account-107-billion-nation-s-health-care-costs-data-show
That's $10.7 Billion annually from 2013 and rising.

That pretty much covers the $11.6 Billion you claim that they contribute via unclaimed taxes.

How much money do we spend annually on anchor babies schooling and medical and housing/food?

I did the math where Anchor Babies drain the Public School systems by $60 Billion+ annually. That's not including the cost of births, nor the SNAP we are giving to the babies family to keep them fed, nor the medical assistance. Rough estimate: $75 Billion in benefits.

Not to mention the amount of problems they put Americans thru with SSN Fraud by messing up people's taxes, retirement benefits, credit, etc.

And don't give me that crap about them doing jobs that American's won't. According to these two sites, American's are already doing the jobs they are doing.

http://cis.org/illegalImmigration-employment
http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2009/bigtable2.html

Now we have a big negative cost associated with them being here.

$75 Billion, what could we do with that kinda money on an annual basis?

1st year, build a wall, drastically reduce the amount of illegals and drugs flowing into the US and start fixing infrastructure.
2nd year, rebuild the US infrastructure
3rd year, rebuild the US infrastructure, etc

That's more jobs and money coming back in taxes as well.


So tell me again xxlt how addressing Illegal Immigration won't help the US Economy?

Dude, I don't know how to tell you this, but an article from a right wing "news" source I never heard of throwing out numbers from a non-profit with an anti-immigrant agenda I have never heard of is not really compelling. You can also show me news articles saying Elvis is alive and running a poker game with Tupac in the back room of a 7-11 in a small town in Idaho and the whole thing is bankrolled by the guys who really faked the moon landings and the space shuttle launches and landings, but I won't necessarily say, "Deal me in!"

This stream of bankruptcy destined hospitals losing billions of dollars a year - no wait, let's make it billions of dollars a day - because of all the wetbacks dropping their anchor babies and getting free heart, lung, and liver transplants, I mean maybe it is real but CNS News and FAIR seem to be the only people who know about it. Maybe the people at CNS and FAIR are on the receiving end of all that cocaine you are worried about. You know the old saying, "Cocaine is a helluva drug!" It would explain reporting "news" and numbers that don't jibe with reality.

[GMDino]

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Speak for yourself, there's more than 1 to get the economy moving.
For example: Limiting H1B's is a good start to putting American's back to work and start rebuilding the middle class.
Agree or disagree?

If Americans are able to fill those jobs, yes. And if those jobs pay enough to get people into the "middle class", yes.

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Error Mr Trump Hater,
Changing the laws of US Citizenship being granted by Jus Sanguinis from Jus Soli is not against the Constitution if that is what you are trying to infer here.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-challenges-birthright-citizenship/

Quote:Trump has made taking a hard line on illegal immigration a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, and he has repeatedly questioned the U.S. policy of granting birthright citizenship to children whose parents are in the country illegally — children that Trump refers to as “anchor babies” (a term that some consider offensive).

Legislators have been introducing bills year after year aimed at “clarifying” the 14th Amendment to end the long-standing policy of birthright citizenship for children born to parents in the country illegally. None of the bills has ever been successful, and most constitutional scholars say such legislation wouldn’t work anyway because, they say, the change would require a constitutional amendment — a much tougher hurdle than a simple bill.

...

Birthright citizenship is embedded in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
The idea was to grant citizenship to recently freed slaves. But the 14th Amendment also forms the basis of the country’s longstanding policy of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born on American soil.

The birthright citizenship portion of the amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898 in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which involved a man, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents who were citizens of China but legally living in the United States. (There was no such thing as illegal immigration at the time.) Some argue that while that settles the issue of whether the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to children born to parents in the country legally, it doesn’t necessarily settle the issue regarding children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally.

The only other Supreme Court involvement on the issue is a footnote in a 1982 decision in the case Plyler v. Doe, which dealt with the issue of whether states must provide education to children not “legally admitted” into the United States. In that case, Justice William Brennan, writing the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision, stated that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

As a matter of practice, the U.S. government has interpreted the wording of the 14th Amendment to mean that children born in the U.S., even to parents who are in the country illegally, are deemed citizens. And most constitutional scholars believe it would require a constitutional amendment to change that. Constitutional amendments are hard to enact. They must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and then need to be ratified by three-fourth of the states.

...

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of whether children born to people in the country illegally are covered by the 14th Amendment. “It is long past time to clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to the children of anyone just because they can manage to give birth on U.S. soil,” Eastman argued.

Kobach, who also acts as “of counsel” for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which calls for more restrictive immigration laws, argues that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that only children “born to parents who have allegiance to no foreign power” are subject to the “complete jurisdiction” of the U.S. That language, therefore, does not cover children of parents in the country illegally, he argues.

...

Beyond that he either wants to change the constitution he claims he will defend, or create a law to go around it. (or the 14th amendment to it if you want to nitpick.)

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: First, do you understand that 93% of all Cocaine in the US comes directly from the US-Mexican border right?


https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/4.Cocaine.pdf
Today, cocaine is typically transported from Colombia to Mexico or Central America by sea (usually by Colombians) and then onwards by land to the United States and Canada (usually by Mexicans). The US authorities estimate that close to 90% of the cocaine entering the country crosses the US/Mexico land border, most of it entering the state of Texas and, to a lesser extent, California and Arizona.

Besides that the drug is down over the last decade I believe, from the other sources, that 90% of illegal drugs might be coming from Mexico...but that seems to cover all illegal drugs.

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now back to the subject you are talking about:

How many more hospitals need to file bankruptcy or close before you realize that Illegals can't be denied medical attention and rarely if ever pay for it?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/illegal-immigrants-account-107-billion-nation-s-health-care-costs-data-show
That's $10.7 Billion annually from 2013 and rising.

That pretty much covers the $11.6 Billion you claim that they contribute via unclaimed taxes.

And how much to they lose on legal citizens that don't have health insurance? Should we ship them somewhere too?

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How much money do we spend annually on anchor babies schooling and medical and housing/food?

The one working aren't paying for their own housing/food?

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I did the math where Anchor Babies drain the Public School systems by $60 Billion+ annually. That's not including the cost of births, nor the SNAP we are giving to the babies family to keep them fed, nor the medical assistance. Rough estimate: $75 Billion in benefits.

Based on what?

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Not to mention the amount of problems they put Americans thru with SSN Fraud by messing up people's taxes, retirement benefits, credit, etc.

And how much of that is on the businesses hiring them? How often does this happen? Are there sources?

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And don't give me that crap about them doing jobs that American's won't. According to these two sites, American's are already doing the jobs they are doing.

http://cis.org/illegalImmigration-employment
http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2009/bigtable2.html

And what are they each getting paid? If Americans will do the work and the businesses will pay them why are there any illegals working and sending those billions back to Mexico?

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now we have a big negative cost associated with them being here.

$75 Billion, what could we do with that kinda money on an annual basis?

But you just made that number up did the math based on nothing.

But first...earlier in this post (moved it here myself)

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I don't expect Trump to build a wall, but I do expect him to recognize what the problems are.

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1st year, build a wall, drastically reduce the amount of illegals and drugs flowing into the US and start fixing infrastructure.
2nd year, rebuild the US infrastructure
3rd year, rebuild the US infrastructure, etc

That's more jobs and money coming back in taxes as well.


So tell me again xxlt how addressing Illegal Immigration won't help the US Economy?

Ignoring all the other ways they get drugs here (water, underground, planes).

[BmorePat87]

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Speak for yourself, there's more than 1 to get the economy moving.
For example: Limiting H1B's is a good start to putting American's back to work and start rebuilding the middle class.
Agree or disagree?


Error Mr Trump Hater,
Changing the laws of US Citizenship being granted by Jus Sanguinis from Jus Soli is not against the Constitution if that is what you are trying to infer here.


I don't expect Trump to build a wall, but I do expect him to recognize what the problems are.


First, do you understand that 93% of all Cocaine in the US comes directly from the US-Mexican border right?


https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/4.Cocaine.pdf
Today, cocaine is typically transported from Colombia to Mexico or Central America by sea (usually by Colombians) and then onwards by land to the United States and Canada (usually by Mexicans). The US authorities estimate that close to 90% of the cocaine entering the country crosses the US/Mexico land border, most of it entering the state of Texas and, to a lesser extent, California and Arizona.

Now back to the subject you are talking about:

How many more hospitals need to file bankruptcy or close before you realize that Illegals can't be denied medical attention and rarely if ever pay for it?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/illegal-immigrants-account-107-billion-nation-s-health-care-costs-data-show
That's $10.7 Billion annually from 2013 and rising.

That pretty much covers the $11.6 Billion you claim that they contribute via unclaimed taxes.

How much money do we spend annually on anchor babies schooling and medical and housing/food?

I did the math where Anchor Babies drain the Public School systems by $60 Billion+ annually. That's not including the cost of births, nor the SNAP we are giving to the babies family to keep them fed, nor the medical assistance. Rough estimate: $75 Billion in benefits.

Not to mention the amount of problems they put Americans thru with SSN Fraud by messing up people's taxes, retirement benefits, credit, etc.

And don't give me that crap about them doing jobs that American's won't. According to these two sites, American's are already doing the jobs they are doing.

http://cis.org/illegalImmigration-employment
http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2009/bigtable2.html

Now we have a big negative cost associated with them being here.

$75 Billion, what could we do with that kinda money on an annual basis?

1st year, build a wall, drastically reduce the amount of illegals and drugs flowing into the US and start fixing infrastructure.
2nd year, rebuild the US infrastructure
3rd year, rebuild the US infrastructure, etc

That's more jobs and money coming back in taxes as well.


So tell me again xxlt how addressing Illegal Immigration won't help the US Economy?

This is interesting, dude, and I appreciate the response. Enforcing drug laws cost us sooooo much money. Crack down more on the shipment in and save money on the prosecuting of users and dealers. This is a major argument of marijuana proponents. Of course, we aren't going to legalize cocaine, but if we spent money on the front end, we save more on the back end.

Cops and prisons won't like the decrease in funding, though.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-25-2016, 04:53 PM)xxlt Wrote: Dude, I don't know how to tell you this, but an article from a right wing "news" source I never heard of throwing out numbers from a non-profit with an anti-immigrant agenda I have never heard of is not really compelling. You can also show me news articles saying Elvis is alive and running a poker game with Tupac in the back room of a 7-11 in a small town in Idaho and the whole thing is bankrolled by the guys who really faked the moon landings and the space shuttle launches and landings, but I won't necessarily say, "Deal me in!"

This stream of bankruptcy destined hospitals losing billions of dollars a year - no wait, let's make it billions of dollars a day - because of all the wetbacks dropping their anchor babies and getting free heart, lung, and liver transplants, I mean maybe it is real but CNS News and FAIR seem to be the only people who know about it. Maybe the people at CNS and FAIR are on the receiving end of all that cocaine you are worried about. You know the old saying, "Cocaine is a helluva drug!" It would explain reporting "news" and numbers that don't jibe with reality.

cis.org (which is fairly neutral biased) states that there was $4.3 billion dollars unpaid just from Emergency Room and Free Clinic visits by undocumented aliens in 2011, this number does not include in-patient health care which is also very expensive because 1 person can rack up some serious bills.

So even if that final number is between 4.3 billion and 10.7 billion, that's a big number and still doesn't cover the costs of schooling the kids.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-25-2016, 05:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: 1. If Americans are able to fill those jobs, yes.  And if those jobs pay enough to get people into the "middle class", yes.  





http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-challenges-birthright-citizenship/

2. Beyond that he either wants to change the constitution he claims he will defend, or create a law to go around it. (or the 14th amendment to it if you want to nitpick.)

 

3. Besides that the drug is down over the last decade I believe, from the other sources, that 90% of illegal drugs might be coming from Mexico...but that seems to cover all illegal drugs.

4. And how much to they lose on legal citizens that don't have health insurance?  Should we ship them somewhere too?

5. The one working aren't paying for their own housing/food?

6. Based on what?

7. And how much of that is on the businesses hiring them? How often does this happen?  Are there sources?

8. And what are they each getting paid?  If Americans will do the work and the businesses will pay them why are there any illegals working and sending those billions back to Mexico?

But you just made that number up did the math based on nothing.

But first...earlier in this post (moved it here myself)

9. Ignoring all the other ways they get drugs here (water, underground, planes).

1. H1B's are almost all STEM jobs, we have plenty of STEM Graduates that could fill most if not all of those jobs.


2 .As far as birthright goes, I am of the mind that the parents are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" there would be no need for that phrase if it was just pure Jus Soli that the other side is trying to claim.

3. You didn't post anything backing your stance, I did, so don't try to change it to an opinion please. Putting up a wall will slow it down drastically. Of course they will have to use other means, but it will hurt them.

4. Legal citizens pay taxes and it goes on their credit records and if they default bad enough, their tax money can be kept to pay their bills, but don't put them in the same boat as Illegals.

5. Hunh what? how can an Anchor baby work? Anyways I figure you are trying to say their parents, again if they are here illegally they are not supposed to be working. If they do they are in violation of the laws.

6. I knew someone would question it.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Europe-and-Muslim-Immigrants?pid=193225#pid193225

7. If they run the SSN thru and it's valid, most businesses aren't going to question it.

8. No Genius, I didn't make the number up, I proved it thru the most basic math and didn't begin to include benefits of any kind.

9. Uhm, I'm showing you 1 place to get the money for a wall and the advantages of having it for the long run in our war vs drugs and illegal immigrants.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-25-2016, 05:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is interesting, dude, and I appreciate the response. Enforcing drug laws cost us sooooo much money. Crack down more on the shipment in and save money on the prosecuting of users and dealers. This is a major argument of marijuana proponents. Of course, we aren't going to legalize cocaine, but if we spent money on the front end, we save more on the back end.

Cops and prisons won't like the decrease in funding, though.

Glad someone was able to see some that there is other benefits to a wall besides just keeping illegals out. :)

Not that I think it will ever happen, but it's just one of those things that will never get done.

[GMDino]

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/08/23/trump-makes-sudden-u-turn-on-immigration-in-fox-new-interview.html

Quote:Trump has a new immigration plan: To do ‘the same thing’ Obama is doing

The Republican nominee now says he plans to continue to do what Obama’s doing, but “with more energy.”


After spending a few days reflecting on his immigration stances and consulting with Hispanic supporters, Donald Trump on Monday detailed how he would deal with the millions of immigrants illegally living in the United States: Enforce laws that are already on the books and continue to do “the same thing” President Obama is doing, although “perhaps with a lot more energy.”

This strategy marks a sudden change for the Republican nominee, who has presented himself as a politically incorrect outsider who is not afraid to take extreme measures to combat illegal immigration, such as deporting 11 million people or constructing a massive wall along the southern border. For more than a year, Trump insisted that all illegal immigrants “have got to go” and that he would create a “deportation force” to carry out the task.


Trump struck a starkly different tone during an interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News that aired on Monday night. Trump said he would separate the country’s undocumented immigrants into two groups: The “bad ones” who would be kicked out of the country as soon as he takes office and “everybody else” who would go through the same process that the Obama Administration is currently using.


“The first thing we’re going to do if and when I win is we’re going to get rid of all of the bad ones,” Trump said. “We’ve got gang members, we have killers, we have a lot of bad people that have to get out of this country. We’re going to get them out, and the police know who they are. They’re known by law enforcement who they are. We don’t do anything. They go around killing people and hurting people and they’re going to be out of this country so fast your head will spin. We have existing laws that allow you to do that.”


The United States has long deported illegal immigrants who are violent criminals, and Obama’s administration has focused on targeting “felons, not families.” As the United States recently saw a surge of tens of thousands of women and children fleeing violence and corruption in Central America, the administration has deported all new arrivals who did not qualify for political asylum in hopes of deterring others from making the dangerous journey — a stance that has angered immigrant rights groups. Clinton has said that she would only deport violent criminals and terrorists.

Trump has long called for quicker removal of illegal immigrants who become violent. On Monday night, Trump explained how he would address nonviolent illegal immigrants.


“As far as everybody else, we’re going to go through the process,” Trump said. “What people don’t know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country. 
Bush, the same thing. Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws. Well, I’m going to do the same thing.”


Later in the interview, Trump again explained how this group of people would be treated.


“As far as the rest, we’re going to go through the process, like they are now, perhaps with a lot more energy, and we’re going to do it only through the system of laws,” Trump said.


At one point, O’Reilly asked Trump about expanding the court system to adjudicate all of these cases and setting up detention centres to house people as they wait for their immigration cases to be heard. Trump quickly batted down the suggestion that he would house people in detention centres.


“You don’t have to put them in a detention centre,” Trump said. “Bill, you’re the first one to mention ‘detention centre.’ You don’t have to put them in a detention centre ... I’m not going to put them in a detention centre. No.”


O’Reilly said that he suggested detention centres because Trump had previously likened his plans to mass deportations carried out during the 1950s under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.


“I said that it’s something that has been done in a very strong manner,” Trump said, explaining why he had originally referenced the historic deportations. “I don’t agree with that. I’m not talking about detention centres. I have very, very good relationships with a lot of people, a lot of Hispanic people. We’re talking about it.”

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-25-2016, 09:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/08/23/trump-makes-sudden-u-turn-on-immigration-in-fox-new-interview.html

Let's turn the tables here,
How much of this is actually true? Surely the thestar, which is a left biased media, would tell the entire truth. right?

[fredtoast]

(08-26-2016, 12:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Let's turn the tables here,
How much of this is actually true? Surely the thestar, which is a left biased media, would tell the entire truth. right?

Here is how a debate works.

If you feel a source is biased you have to post something that proves it is not telling the truth.

You can not just make a rule that "Any source that disagrees with my opinion is automatically wrong."

[SunsetBengal]

(08-26-2016, 05:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is how a debate works.

If you feel a source is biased you have to post something that proves it is not telling the truth.

You can not just make a rule that "Any source that disagrees with my opinion is automatically wrong."

You, are the one trained specifically in, as well as earn your living as a professional in argumentation and debate.  A few others on here argue and support their statements at the same level you do.  A few more of us know how, but don't find it worth the energy to put all of that effort into winning a petty battle of opinions on an internet message board.  The rest of the board population either doesn't know, has yet to learn, or is limited in their ability to learn how to debate in any traditional format.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Error Mr Trump Hater,
Changing the laws of US Citizenship being granted by Jus Sanguinis from Jus Soli is not against the Constitution if that is what you are trying to infer here.

So, are you ignoring the 14th? It would take a constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship.

Also, the message sender implies, the receiver infers.