Mass Deportation

[squistion 1,952]

23 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

You think there might be some other Republicans who need to get re-elected? 

When he tries deport half the agriculture workers. Or you get some photos of some crying kids and the family is getting split up. Or he starts messing with amendments in the Constitution. 

Why couldn’t he build a fence in the first two years of his first presidency? Same issues are there now.

We’ll see what happens. A bunch of talk right now with no details and what little he’s given is vague.

During his last administration, there were videos of screaming toddlers being pulled from their mother's arms and it was pretty much met with complete indifference by Trump supporters and the MAGA crowd - I expect the same reaction this time around. 

[RLLD 4,143]

I hope they do try to be as humane as possible.  I anticipate liberals will seek out and exploit any instances where people are having a bad day because of this effort.

I hope the people are able to ignore the attempts to seek empathy for the folks who came here illegally.    Let them suffer, it can useful as a warning to the rest to not try it.

[MDC 7,133]

I think Trump will crack down hard on refugees and legal migration like last time. I doubt he does much about the illegals. I fully expect a lot of loud complaining that sanctuary cities aren’t going to use their law enforcement to support ICE. 

My perdiction is mostly a lot of showboating, tweets and bull, Trump’s specialty. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,944]

So who was picking the fruit before Biden opened the border? 

[squistion 1,952]

41 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I hope they do try to be as humane as possible.  I anticipate liberals will seek out and exploit any instances where people are having a bad day because of this effort.

I hope the people are able to ignore the attempts to seek empathy for the folks who came here illegally. Let them suffer, it can useful as a warning to the rest to not try it.

SMH. 

As was said about Trump's family separation policy under his first administration: "Cruelty Is the point, The White House's immigration policies are designed to maximize suffering" 

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/for-trump-cruelty-is-the-point/

[RLLD 4,143]

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

SMH. 

As was said about Trump's family separation policy under his first administration: "Cruelty Is the point, The White House's immigration policies are designed to maximize suffering" 

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/for-trump-cruelty-is-the-point/

Sure. I am not opposed, makes perfect sense. So by all means, dissuade and if they have to suffer as part of the execution, so be it.

[squistion 1,952]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Sure. I am not opposed, makes perfect sense. So by all means, dissuade and if they have to suffer as part of the execution, so be it.

That speaks volumes about what kind of person you are. And if I believed that I would never admit it, even anonomously, on a message board.

[RLLD 4,143]

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

That speaks volumes about what kind of person you are. And if I believed that I would never admit it, even anonomously, on a message board.

That's fine, I could say the same about you deferring to immigrants over our citizens, but that is pointless and not actually an argument.  You point to the person when you have no position to argue from, because you cannot defend the policy.

I defend the policy because these people should not have come here illegally, and they get what they deserve for doing that. I defend the policy because doing this provides a disincentive for others who want to violate our border I support the policy because all that money they spent on these people needs to be used to benefit OUR citizens, and after our people are properly supported if there is anything left over maybe then we can support other people.

 

[squistion 1,952]

16 minutes ago, RLLD said:

That's fine, I could say the same about you deferring to immigrants over our citizens, but that is pointless and not actually an argument.  You point to the person when you have no position to argue from, because you cannot defend the policy.

I defend the policy because these people should not have come here illegally, and they get what they deserve for doing that. I defend the policy because doing this provides a disincentive for others who want to violate our border I support the policy because all that money they spent on these people needs to be used to benefit OUR citizens, and after our people are properly supported if there is anything left over maybe then we can support other people.

Treating people humanely is not deferring to immigrants over out citizens. Please. You're right in that it is a pointless Straw Man argument. 

 

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, squistion said:

Treating people humanely is not deferring to immigrants over out citizens. Please. You're right in that it is a pointless Straw Man argument. 

 

All of this desire to be humane, should have been applied to the needy across this nation.  That you suddenly care about the needs of other citizens over your own is not something I can get behind.  

Fix the problems in your own home before trying to fix others. THAT is humane....

[5-Points 3,393]

2 hours ago, thegeneral said:

You think there might be some other Republicans who need to get re-elected? 

When he tries deport half the agriculture workers. Or you get some photos of some crying kids and the family is getting split up. Or he starts messing with amendments in the Constitution. 

Why couldn’t he build a fence in the first two years of his first presidency? Same issues are there now.

We’ll see what happens. A bunch of talk right now with no details and what little he’s given is vague.

Yeah. And if they do what the majority of Americans sent them to Washington to do, they will be. 

Deport the whole family. Problem solved.

I'm old enough to remember all the court challenges the left threw at Trump to prevent the wall from being built last time around. They might pull the same sh!t this time but I suspect they won't be as successful with their constant interference this time around. 

[squistion 1,952]

7 minutes ago, RLLD said:

All of this desire to be humane, should have been applied to the needy across this nation.  That you suddenly care about the needs of other citizens over your own is not something I can get behind.  

Fix the problems in your own home before trying to fix others. THAT is humane....

No, I don't care about the needs of other citizens over our own - this is not a zero sum game.

Talk about deflection, as you keep repeating that Straw Man. 

[iam90sbaby 2,490]

2 hours ago, thegeneral said:

You think there might be some other Republicans who need to get re-elected? 

When he tries deport half the agriculture workers. Or you get some photos of some crying kids and the family is getting split up. Or he starts messing with amendments in the Constitution. 

Why couldn’t he build a fence in the first two years of his first presidency? Same issues are there now.

We’ll see what happens. A bunch of talk right now with no details and what little he’s given is vague.

If your economy is dependent on that many illegals it's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. Things will probably get more expensive for a while but it's the price all Americans should pay. We deserve this and got ourselves in this situation all because we wanted to save a couple bucks at the grocery store.

After that we should cut China off and start making things again.

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

No, I don't care about the needs of other citizens over our own - this is not a zero sum game.

Talk about deflection, as you keep repeating that Straw Man. 

Yes, you do if you support the care of people illegally crossing our border over the needs of our citizens then you absolutely are caring about the needs of other citizens over our own.

Instead you should object to every single dollar spent on illegal immigrants that is therefore denied to our citizens who need it. 

You should, but you clearly do not.  That is the problem.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,944]

2 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

If your economy is dependent on that many illegals it's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. Things will probably get more expensive for a while but it's the price all Americans should pay. We deserve this and got ourselves in this situation all because we wanted to save a couple bucks at the grocery store.

After that we should cut China off and start making things again.

Great post. There is no comeback too it. 

[squistion 1,952]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Yes, you do if you support the care of people illegally crossing our border over the needs of our citizens then you absolutely are caring about the needs of other citizens over our own.

Instead you should object to every single dollar spent on illegal immigrants that is therefore denied to our citizens who need it. 

You should, but you clearly do not.  That is the problem.

No, I care about treating them humanely and without intentionally causing suffering, which is not caring about them over our own citizens, because it is the right thing to do. 

[Strike 5,204]

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, I care about treating them humanely and without intentionally causing suffering, which is not caring about them over our own citizens, because it is the right thing to do. 

We can and should HUMANELY deport them.

[RLLD 4,143]

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, I care about treating them humanely and without intentionally causing suffering, which is not caring about them over our own citizens, because it is the right thing to do. 

No, I wont let you off the hook here.  You want to hold on to that "I am morally superior" mask and yet you are actively ignoring the needs of our own people.  It would be like ensuring someone who broke into your house was being taken care of instead of your own kids.

You either lose the faux morality angle entirely and come up with some other excuse or I call you out on the duality of your position.

[squistion 1,952]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

No, I wont let you off the hook here.  You want to hold on to that "I am morally superior" mask and yet you are actively ignoring the needs of our own people.  It would be like ensuring someone who broke into your house was being taken care of instead of your own kids.

You either lose the faux morality angle entirely and come up with some other excuse or I call you out on the duality of your position.

No, treating people humanely and without intentional cruelty does not have to be at the expense of ignoring the needs of our own people.You are setting up a false dichotomy.

[RLLD 4,143]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, treating people humanely and without intentional cruelty does not have to be at the expense of ignoring the needs of our own people.You are setting up a false dichotomy.

No, pretending you are not elevating the needs of people who came here illegally and thus broke  our laws, above those of our citizens is not something I will let slide.

Now, as I already mentioned I hope they are humane, but lets not pretend liberals wont find some immigrant somewhere crying and pretend its allllll just sooooo inhumane....

No, fock them, they do not get to violate our borders and then get normal treatment.  Gather them up, put them in camps, send them back if they are separated as a family, that is the rewards for their illegal acts. 

Those who come here legally get our compassion.....not those who knowingly broke our laws....fock them....

[squistion 1,952]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

No, pretending you are not elevating the needs of people who came here illegally and thus broke  our laws, above those of our citizens is not something I will let slide.

Now, as I already mentioned I hope they are humane, but lets not pretend liberals wont find some immigrant somewhere crying and pretend its allllll just sooooo inhumane....

No, fock them, they do not get to violate our borders and then get normal treatment.  Gather them up, put them in camps, send them back if they are separated as a family, that is the rewards for their illegal acts. 

Those who come here legally get our compassion.....not those who knowingly broke our laws....fock them....

SMH.

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, squistion said:

SMH.

Shake your head to your hearts content.  It is people like you who have enabled this invasion to transpire, and dont bother with some link to a liberal hive mind about it not being an invasion, because it is.....lie to yourself and your other cultists, not me....

YOU are part of the problem that has allowed sweeping harm to come to this nation, YOU have elevated the needs of criminals above those of our own people.....and you have no shame.

[squistion 1,952]

8 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Shake your head to your hearts content.  It is people like you who have enabled this invasion to transpire, and dont bother with some link to a liberal hive mind about it not being an invasion, because it is.....lie to yourself and your other cultists, not me....

YOU are part of the problem that has allowed sweeping harm to come to this nation, YOU have elevated the needs of criminals above those of our own people.....and you have no shame.

No, treating people humanely and without intentionally causing suffering is not elevating the needs of criminals above our own people.

[Maximum Overkill 1,740]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So who was picking the fruit before Biden opened the border? 

Make these Welfare Mooches do it. 

[purdygood 334]

If i move to Utah and become a Mormon can I Marry all the hot Latina's who are going to be deported and make them citizens?

[RLLD 4,143]

13 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, treating people humanely and without intentionally causing suffering is not elevating the needs of criminals above our own people.

No, you will use any crying or complaining as a weapon, you and yours will insist we are not being "humane" because your only weapon to keep the future voters you think you have harvested is to play on peoples emotions.

So have at it, pretend all you want, they are still going to be deported......

[TBayXXXVII 2,484]

25 minutes ago, purdygood said:

If i move to Utah and become a Mormon can I Marry all the hot Latina's who are going to be deported and make them citizens?

I think you should absolutely try it.  Let's see how that works for you.

[5-Points 3,393]

1 hour ago, iam90sbaby said:

If your economy is dependent on that many illegals it's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. Things will probably get more expensive for a while but it's the price all Americans should pay. We deserve this and got ourselves in this situation all because we wanted to save a couple bucks at the grocery store.

After that we should cut China off and start making things again.

The rise in wages, as a result of getting rid of the undercutters, will offset the rise in prices. 

[purdygood 334]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

I think you should absolutely try it.  Let's see how that works for you.

Will do!  Do you know any good prenup attorneys? I'll be swimming in Latina's.  I think they call them Harrem's in the Middle East.

[TBayXXXVII 2,484]

Just now, purdygood said:

Will do!  Do you know any good prenup attorneys? I'll be swimming in Latina's.

Worms is the one who claims to be the lawyer, he's probably a better option than me for that.  Though, with all the websites out there, I don't think you'd have a hard time finding a ready-made contract online.  That said, I'm not sure you could make a non-citizen sign a legal US document and have it stand up in court.  Again, I'm not a lawyer, only guessing.  On second thought, I'm more convinced that @Engorgeous George is actually an attorney, more so than Worms.  He's a better option as well.  He also may have more info on marrying someone to make them a citizen.  I don't think that is a straight forward as some may think.  Kind of why I'm curious to see how this would turn out for you. 

Gotta be careful though.  You get them all pregnant... you might need a 2nd or 3rd job.

[jerryskids 6,568]

45 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, treating people humanely and without intentionally causing suffering is not elevating the needs of criminals above our own people.

There is a concept of punishment and negative incentives, it's pretty well established.  Theoretically, our entire criminal justice system is based on the concept of not so much punishing people per se, but in creating disincentives for such behavior in the future, for both the perpetrator and others who might commit similar crimes.

Incentives drive the reason that kidnapping by itself is typically not a capital crime -- if it were, the kidnapper would have no reason NOT to kill their victims should things not go astray.

It is the unfortunate that incentives work this way, but if your approach is to give illegal aliens free housing, free healthcare, free schooling, free translation, and other services totalling $20B in your state alone... you aren't incentivizing them to leave, or stop coming.

Sorry about this reality drop.  Also, you either won't read it or won't respond, because as usual, you have nothing substantive to add to my comments.  But others might.   

[thegeneral 2,913]

1 hour ago, iam90sbaby said:

If your economy is dependent on that many illegals it's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. Things will probably get more expensive for a while but it's the price all Americans should pay. We deserve this and got ourselves in this situation all because we wanted to save a couple bucks at the grocery store.

After that we should cut China off and start making things again.

There are something like 5% of the workforce who are undocumented. Eight million people. Replacing them with American workers isn’t going to happen. Who the hell is going to move to rural Idaho or California to do this work for shet wages and no benefits?

Things will certainly get more expensive if it happened. People crapped their pants when things got more expensive last four years and it got Biden killed. 

My prediction is there will be some tatted up criminals who will be very publicly deported, there will either be some compromise (similar to what was agreed upon that got killed for the election) or Trump will blame Dems for not being able to kick out people who are here illegally but contributing to society.

[purdygood 334]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Worms is the one who claims to be the lawyer, he's probably a better option than me for that.  Though, with all the websites out there, I don't think you'd have a hard time finding a ready-made contract online.  That said, I'm not sure you could make a non-citizen sign a legal US document and have it stand up in court.  Again, I'm not a lawyer, only guessing.  On second thought, I'm more convinced that @Engorgeous George is actually an attorney, more so than Worms.  He's a better option as well.  He also may have more info on marrying someone to make them a citizen.  I don't think that is a straight forward as some may think.  Kind of why I'm curious to see how this would turn out for you. 

Gotta be careful though.  You get them all pregnant... you might need a 2nd or 3rd job.

Haha thanks for the heads up.  I'm 43 and have no kids, so either my pull out game is hella strong or my swimmers don't swim.  But either way 7 Latina wives who owe me favor sounds like a nice way to retire haha

[The Real timschochet 6,432]

New England Patriots fans. 

Everyone who appeared in the film Star Wars Episode One- The Phantom Menace. 
 

Mariah Carey and her Christmas song. 
 

Did I mention New England Patriots fans? 

[Engorgeous George 2,138]

7 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Worms is the one who claims to be the lawyer, he's probably a better option than me for that.  Though, with all the websites out there, I don't think you'd have a hard time finding a ready-made contract online.  That said, I'm not sure you could make a non-citizen sign a legal US document and have it stand up in court.  Again, I'm not a lawyer, only guessing.  On second thought, I'm more convinced that @Engorgeous George is actually an attorney, more so than Worms.  He's a better option as well.  He also may have more info on marrying someone to make them a citizen.  I don't think that is a straight forward as some may think.  Kind of why I'm curious to see how this would turn out for you. 

Gotta be careful though.  You get them all pregnant... you might need a 2nd or 3rd job.

Not my area of practice by any means.  That said I believe confering of citizenship based on marriage is a process requiring the non-citizen to have lived in the U.S. continously for three years on a legal green card.  During that time the applicant cannot have any crimes of moral turpitude.  Also the marriage must stand for three continous years prior to application and the person must live with their spouse and the marriage cannot be found to have been entered into for the sole or primary purpose of confering citizenship.  Additionally the applicant must show an appreciation for our laws and history similar too, but less intense, perhaps, than a person applying for a naturalization test.  I believe there rare exceptions for members of the military.

As for the contract, contracts can be concluded with non-native speakers. If I wished to assure the woman would be bound by the contract I would have her obtain legal advice and translation, if necessary, prior to signing the contract and would have that fact noted in the contrat.  Contracts are all about a meeting of the minds and a non-native speaker without representation prior to signing would have an argument there was no appreciation for its terms, that there was not a meeting of the minds.  Best to spend a few extra dollars up front to have them have representation than on the back end fighting whether there was a meeting of the minds.

The foregoing is all hypothetical.  It is not legal advice one can rely upon. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,484]

3 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Not my area of practice by any means.  That said I believe confering of citizenship based on marriage is a process requiring the non-citizen to have lived in the U.S. continously for three years on a legal green card.  During that time the applicant cannot have any crimes of moral turpitude.  Also the marriage must stand for three continous years prior to application and the person must live with their spouse and the marriage canot be found to have been entered into for the sole or primary purpose of confering citizenship.  Additionally the applicant must show an appreciation for our laws and history similar too, but less intense, perhaps, than a person applying for a naturalization test.  I believe there zare exceptions for members of the military.

As for the contract, contracts can be concluded with non-native speakers. If I wished to assure the woman would be bound by the contract i would have her obtain legal advice and translation, if necessary prior to signing the contract and would ahve that fact noted in the contrat.  Contracts are all about a meeting of the minds and a non-native speaker without representation prior to signing would have an argument there was no appreciation for its terms, that there was not a meeting of the minds.  Best to spend a few extra dollars up front to have them have representation than on the back end fighting whether there was a meeting of the minds.

The foregoing is all hypothetical.  It is not legal advice one can rely upon. 

Good stuff.  @purdygood, you have a starting point.  Consult an attorney about a prenup and go from there.  Give updates.

[Engorgeous George 2,138]

14 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Good stuff.  @purdygood, you have a starting point.  Consult an attorney about a prenup and go from there.  Give updates.

I think purdygood would be better served just moving south of the border, leasing a nice villa, and hound dogging the area for chicks.  if he can posture himself a rich American many of those Latinas for whom he lusts will try to use their feminine wiles to trap him into marriage.  He will get all the strange his heart desires and they will do the heavy lifting..  I would recommend a vasectomy before he puts this plan into operation.  I would also recommend he not prowl really rural areas as families down there can take offense (read cut off your junk) if they suspect you trifled with their women folk.

[jerryskids 6,568]

58 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Not my area of practice by any means.  That said I believe confering of citizenship based on marriage is a process requiring the non-citizen to have lived in the U.S. continously for three years on a legal green card.  During that time the applicant cannot have any crimes of moral turpitude.  Also the marriage must stand for three continous years prior to application and the person must live with their spouse and the marriage canot be found to have been entered into for the sole or primary purpose of confering citizenship.  Additionally the applicant must show an appreciation for our laws and history similar too, but less intense, perhaps, than a person applying for a naturalization test.  I believe there zare exceptions for members of the military.

As for the contract, contracts can be concluded with non-native speakers. If I wished to assure the woman would be bound by the contract i would have her obtain legal advice and translation, if necessary prior to signing the contract and would ahve that fact noted in the contrat.  Contracts are all about a meeting of the minds and a non-native speaker without representation prior to signing would have an argument there was no appreciation for its terms, that there was not a meeting of the minds.  Best to spend a few extra dollars up front to have them have representation than on the back end fighting whether there was a meeting of the minds.

The foregoing is all hypothetical.  It is not legal advice one can rely upon. 

Interesting, as I think this SCOTUS decision yesterday is relevant.  Unanimous, KBJ wrote the opinion even:

Quote

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Homeland Security has wide discretion to revoke visas for immigrants who entered into fake marriages.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing the opinion for the court, said Congress was explicit in giving broad leeway to the Homeland Security secretary, and the law leaves little room for judges to second-guess those decisions.

The case stemmed from a claim by Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen who petitioned for her spouse, Ala’a Hamayel, a Palestinian citizen, to gain a U.S. visa.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services initially approved the spouse visa, but reversed course two years later. It said it uncovered new evidence that Mr. Hamayel engaged in a previous sham marriage a decade earlier and that made the new visa invalid.

Ms. Bouarfa objected, but the government cited the law that lets the secretary revoke a visa “for good and sufficient cause.”

Ms. Bouarfa then asked the courts to get involved, but Justice Jackson said Homeland Security’s decision is the final word.

“In any event, when the Secretary opts to revoke a petition that he determines should not have been approved in the first place, the petitioner is not out of options,” Justice Jackson wrote.

That applies only to revocations, however.

Justice Jackson said Homeland Security’s initial decision on issuing a benefit can be challenged in the courts.

That means Ms. Bouarfa can file a new application for her husband and, if USCIS rejects it, she can challenge that decision in the courts. Indeed, she has already applied and that application is pending, Justice Jackson said.

• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/dec/10/dhs-power-revoke-visas-sham-marriages-supreme-cour/

[shorepatrol 1,870]

8 hours ago, squistion said:

You are setting up a false dichotomy.

Your entire belief system is a false dichotomy. You hate yourself, you're pathetic 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,839]

3 minutes ago, shorepatrol said:

Your entire belief system is a false dichotomy. You hate yourself, you're pathetic 

As he is a card carrying member of the rainbow mob, hating yourself is a requirement.