TBayXXXVII

Armed forces, being military? I didn't say that. I said government agents, meaning, ICE. Don't have to get it through Congress, just do what Obama did with the ACA, ignore the rule of law and E.O. it and done. Why's it ok for Obama but not Trump? Let me guess, "it's (D)ifferent", right?

Me either. Never had the desire to watch it.

Already answered... That might have been the wrong link. Here's the right one (last paragraph).

Well, I was trying to be environmentally conscious. Isn't that a liberal thing? Mass transit, public transportation? Ok, let's go with the Liberal actions instead of their words. We'll drive cars to all of these residences and pick them up. If they have a weapon, they make life easier, because now they're committing a crime. Well, we are sending federal agents who will have guns. If force is needed, it's self defense. I'd hate to have these immigrants get harmed, but if they go peacefully, there won't be a problem. If they have kids, the kids are going too. They're not being arrested, they're being deported. How would they get the wrong people? If a person is a legal citizen, they have ID... or do you think they're too stupid like you think black people are too stupid to get an ID? Why wouldn't the government do this properly... you trust them for everything else (for some weird reason). Politically, I think it would be easier than you think. Most of the country wants a secure border and a legitimate vetting process. Most of the country are ok with deporting the criminals. That's what I said in the beginning. I said it could be done for others, but the primary objective is the criminals. Let's get rid of them and see where the chips fall. Like I said also, I'm ok with the other people coming here and taking the pathway to citizenship if their communist (sorry, Freudian slip), liberal government covers the cost without federal money.

Sounds good. I'm all for it. Democrat politicians can pay for the travel and then they can bill Mexico or Ecuador for reimbursement. Good thinking. I'm ok with that.

It's states rights. If a state wants to handle something one way, they're free to do it. There has to be a penalty for breaking the law. We have those already in place... it's not new. If you commit a crime and are found guilty, people can go to prison. This is no different. If there is a bill to be paid, and you're not paying the bill, you're guilty of breaking the law. In this case, the penalty is prison. Also, I'm not putting the immigrants there... they're going back to the country they came from. It's the politicians who are breaking federal law that's going to prison.

So, in this country, we have these things called "Busses" (link provided in case you don't know what one is). What we do is, get the data from the city governments involving the people who are illegal, then go pick them up. If we need more of these things we call "busses", we take more. So, when we get these people, we take them to the immigration office. When there, we find out where they came from and then we put them on a plane and fly them back there. This will cost money. Well, the we create this thing called a "bill", this is not a law, it's an itemized list of what things cost. We take this bill and give it to the city those illegal immigrants came from. They pay the bill. If they refuse to pay the bill, the city officials are arrested for violating federal law and put in a federal prison until they pay the bill. Now, because I know you're not smart enough to connect the dots, I'll tell you. The federal law that they are breaking, is the one that will be signed into law (Executive order... let's not pretend that only Republican's make these), that will say that sanctuary cities and states will be responsible for the costs of the deportation of illegal immigrants. Failure to do so, will result in a federal imprisonment until payment is procured.

So, in this country, you can come from a different country and apply to be a citizen. There are steps to do that. If these people are so inclined, they can do it if their state is ok with it and supplies the pathway. Anyone who doesn't pay the bill for the costs involved in deporting illegal immigrants. Well, the cities and states would have members of the DNC Caucus... who need to pay the bill or go to prison. If they're all in prison, the only people left are the Independents and Republican's.

LOL, you keep thinking that.

I think that's a great idea. I mean, that's them "just taking a job no one wants", right?

I guess you would know, it's your party's foundation. But I'm not a Democrat, so the moniker doesn't apply. Sorry.

He's waiting for me to say "by doing mass raids" or by some sort of violent tactics or some other kind of "gotchya, you're a racist", statement. The thing is, it's not really all that hard. The majority of these people are tracked by the cities and states they're in, they just don't want them counted for the rest of the world (or even their own constituents), to find out.

Unfortunately, we don't have a choice because the scumbags you vote for let millions in and it would be too expensive to do it. That said, I don't think it would really be all that hard (just time), to track most of them down though. If the federal government want to use the data that's out there, then go for it. See, the majority of these people who are in sanctuary states or cities are getting some kind of benefit... be it drivers licenses, work visas, what have you. They're getting something. There's likely government agencies with records of these people because there's someone advocating for them. Very few are just here hiding in the shadows. Round them up, and as I said, make the state pay the bill. They created the problem, they can clean it up. Now, if the state wants them to stay... I'm ok with that. Why? States Rights. The state can foot the bill to go through the process of getting them citizenship. If they don't want to pay, then they go to federal prision. This is a no-lose situation. If the Democrats pay, they're paying for their own policies... I'm fine with that. If they don't pay, the cities and states will be turned over to Republican or Independent candidates (because the members of the DNC Caucus will all be in prison), and a border policy will easily implemented to severely stem the flow of illegal immigration.

I told you who I was collecting and how.

Who said I was collecting them? The scumbags that you voted for, made it virtually impossible to do that. The thing we need to do is secure the border so that more don't come through and add to the problem. I think making a federal law to prohibit illegal immigration to the extent that being in this country illegally is a federal crime and the penalty is determined by the person who's here illegally. They can go back to where they came from, stay in federal prison for the rest of their lives, or the death penalty. I'm ok with whatever they choose.

I don't know that their countries "don't want them". It's impossible to come up with a solution because the Democrats need victims to exploit. If there are no immigrants to exploit, there's no reason to allow them in, in the first place. And Democrat voters aren't smart enough to not vote for Democrat politicians, so the cycle will continue.

If they're living off the government dime, yes. I mean, we don't have to "track them down", they're already tracked, right? We know this because we're supporting them. Exceptions, because I believe in states rights.... If the state is a sanctuary state, then they can 100% foot the bill with no aid from the federal government because the federal government isn't a "sanctuary country". In this environment, at the beginning of the year, the state must provide a budget to the federal government showing their financial obligations to confirm that they're not just going to ask for aid for one thing and use it on the illegal immigrants. At the end of the year, the state must give full account expenditures to the federal government every year to verify that federal money isn't being used to fund illegal immigrants. If the state is NOT a sanctuary state, it's up to the state to allow a city to be a sanctuary city. Now, I'm ok with every state allowing it if the city is following the same rules mentioned above.

What about them?

If an illegal immigrant calls 911 on someone else, is that illegal immigrant committing a crime or on custody? If not, how does that apply to what I said? Also, yes, a sanctuary city (or state), is an invitation to go there.

Any illegal immigrant that is in custody, gets sent back to the country they came from. If the city is a sanctuary city, they pays the bill. If it's not, but the state is, then state pays the bill. If neither are, then the head of the DNC pays the bill. Anyone choosing to not pay, will be automatically found guilty of treason. That's how it SHOULD work.

Was just about to post something similar.

True. Again, this doesn't apply to Love.

Nope, not wrong. Robinson and Steele don't have the ceiling that Reed does. Unlike you, I don't think Reed has that much of a shot at Top 20 (I'd say WR3/4), but the shot he does have is light years ahead of Robinson and Steele. Worst case scenario is that the deal ends up a push. Reed should at least be a flex play all year. After guys get healthy, both Robinson and Steele are droppable.

Not playing Love wouldn't go against that line of thinking. He's not a "stud".

Yup