Jump to content

RandomIdoit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RandomIdoit

  1. In other words he wants to do exactly what Canada is doing?
  2. Isn't it because of Reno v. Flores that says that they cannot have children detained for more than 20 days? What I don't understand is the difference between detaining them with their family and without their family hundreds of miles away. Why is one not legal and the other is?
  3. Missed that. Thank you for posting it.
  4. Why aren't these people seeking asylum in other countries? I understand why they want to come to the US. I asked this earlier but didn't get a response: Are the United States and Canada the only "safe" countries in all the Americas? Do the gangs follow these hoards of people across multiple countries until they get to the United States and then scurry back to Central America after the people they are after are across the border?
  5. Those are so hard to cut off.
  6. They are here illegally too. They should be deported too.
  7. Do they get paid on how hard they work? They can work hard and still be a burden. They do have better food though.
  8. So I'm an illegal immigrant and I try to get food stamps. I will not qualify. Then I start having children here who are US citizens, and if I cannot afford to feed them and provide medical care, the burden falls on the state to provide medical care and food. I think they walked all the way across Mexico to get the benefits that we will provide for them. Are the US and Canada the only "safe" places in all of the Americas? Because we do not have unlimited money and we are not the world's welfare system. Some of you think that we SHOULD be but we aren't.
  9. Even the author of the clause, Jacob M. Howard said it was not intended to apply to non citizens. During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:" [The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
  10. Does the welfare program have unlimited money? No? Well let's add even more people to the welfare rolls. Why is citizenship of any country sacrosanct? Our ancestors fought wars so that we could be our own country. Should we not be able to say who is worthy of citizenship or not if they were not born to people who are citizens? Of course, but that shouldn't mean that they are automatically US citizens in my opinion. Make sure they are well taken care of, but then send them back with their parents if they are not granted asylum.
  11. Is it not an incentive for them to come illegally?
  12. Emma Lazarus wrote that for a fundraiser and you act like it is the law of the land.
  13. It is! But that doesn't mean it's a good thing when they do come here illegally and they should be allowed to.
  14. Birthright citizenship and welfare and medical care for their children who will be born here.
  15. Not agreeing with it but you asked. This is how it happened as far as I could tell: Trump did not want people released into the United States that had not been approved for asylum. Because of Reno vs. Flores, children could not be detained more than 20 days, so they had to be sent to centers where they could be housed in the mean time. His motivations were to punish and deter immigrants from coming here. Now he plans to make them waive their child’s right to release and be detained indefinitely as a family, or exercise their child’s right to release and be separated from your child once more.
  16. That would be a legal avenue. But that still does not remove the incentives for people wanting to come illegally.
  17. Just eliminate all the incentives that they have to come here illegally. If they cannot work, do not get birthright citizenship for their children, do not get government assistance for their children, and are deported immediately, there will be less incentive to come illegally. We can raise the amount of people we take in legally at the same time.
  18. Sane people do not want them dead. They want them to enter legally and to have their cases heard and ruled on in a timely fashion without letting them run around the country before they are approved for asylum.
  19. What would the number of bigots be versus the number of non-bigots that would defend them?
  20. So how would the "administration going full genocide" as you said earlier work then? Trump just calls up some peeps and is like "hey, shoot any brown person you see, okay?" and then they are like "sure thing boss." And everyone in the country just sits by idly while it happens?
  21. Would you expect Congress and SCOTUS to sit idle if there was an actual genocidal executive order?
  22. How would they "go full genocide"? Is Trump going to issue an executive order to kill all immigrants?
  23. Is anyone on here advocating to set up machine gun nests along the border to gun down people? I think most people want immigrants to wait their turn like so many people have to do. I think most people would like to see the asylum cases heard in a reasonable amount of time, say 30 days, not 2+ years. Determine if they are eligible for asylum, then either welcome them in or send them home.
  24. I guess it depends on your definition of good. Enforcing our immigration laws does not make us a bad nation. Asking people to follow the rules and immigrate legally does not make us a bad nation. Separating families as a deterrent/punishment does make us a bad nation but most rational people do not support this policy.
×
×
  • Create New...