Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegals?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

    Basically what the Democrat Party wants to do is turn the US from a democratic republic into a pure democracy where decisions aren't made by elected representatives but by anyone who has an opinion. Everyone would have the right to be free from anyone else telling them what's right for them. It's a little like if a bunch of children got together and tried to run a country. All they have is Pollyanna ideals with no plan at all for how to implement them.

    Many of the people in positions of influence these days were in college in the late 60s. Many think the 60s are dead and gone but actually we're beginning to see the outcome of their ideas coming to fruition now.

    Justice Democrats are one group that has influenced people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I'm sure there are many others that are laying low so as not to attract attention.
    Love is patient, love is kind; it does not envy, it does not boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

      Originally posted by BrianW View Post
      You mentioned Elizabeth Warren earlier. Unless things change drastically I'm willing to bet she'll be the democratic nominee this election.

      She has a plan! Many of them in fact and they include things like:

      1. Decriminalization of entering the country without authorization.
      2. Forbidding states law enforcement from having anything whatsoever to do with immigration matters.
      3. Turning CBP and ICE into basically customs agents.
      4. Giving, or she would say acknowledging, immigrants (whether they applied for citizenship or just walked across the borders) "rights" and "due process."
      5. Free healthcare for all who are in the country period. Citizen or not and whether they immigrated legally or not. Everybody's covered!
      6. Greatly expand asylum parameters. Are you LGBT? Asylum granted! Have you been sexually harassed? Asylum granted! Has someone been mean to you? Etc etc.

      And finally ... I could go on but I'm bored with this already ...

      7. Completely change the court systems that handle immigration and even put in her own hand picked judges to handle cases. Because they aren't really immigrants regardless of the situation they're migrants with rights.

      Are the words "Open Borders" in there anywhere?

      No.

      Does that really matter?

      I'll let you answer that.

      The other candidates running who have a snowballs chance of being the nominee all have similar plans and agendas. So if you'll vote democrat this election, and you know you and the vast majority of democrats will, then these are the positions they will be voting to have enacted.

      I live in reality bro and even though I can play word games with the best of them if I wish to I'm way past that game.
      I think it matters when attempting to substantiate the assertion that "the majority on "the left" are openly calling for open borders" that "open borders" actually appear in the examples somewhere. I also want to point out that none of your examples were actual links, which wouldn't matter so much if you displayed a desire to honestly represent Warren's polices/positions. Characterizing expanded asylum parameters as tantamount to accepting "Has someone been mean to you?" as grounds for asylum shows that you aren't interested substantiating your points with the truth, but instead would rather wallow in hyperbole, exaggeration and sarcasm. I see that you don't respect me enough to bother though, unfortunately that isn't unique at all and it's why Rom believes what he believes,Why you believe what you believe, and why nothing useful has or will get done...not enough courage or love to be earnest even if you think I'm wrong/foolish/misguided/stupid. Its like you revel in the dysfunction you are helping to perpetuate...its only the real world because you work to keep it that way.
      "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

        Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
        Just as the GOP took a hard turn right to appease fringe voices, the Democrats are having to do the same leftwards. The people who think Obama was pro-open borders just live in their own imagination I suppose; but equally there's a subset of centrists who are just in denial (or are apathetic) about the direction the D-party is going. Center-lefts might not like open borders, but now seem to be weighing the cost-benefit in "putting up with" a few wacky ideas for the greater overall picture. Sound familiar?

        Edit: What does confuse me is who certain candidates are listening to that they veer further left. I hadn't even heard TYT pushing this idea, and they are about as liberal as you can get. Maybe it's just a reaction proportionate to the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the far right?

        That is a good point about TYT. I think for at least some centrists when they hear some of the wackier ideas there is the tendency to believe that it wont catch on, or that its a minority position, which is pretty clearly dangerous given that politicians are indeed taking many of them seriously. Living in imagination land is a problem for all of us, its only compounded by the fact that its easy to fall into, difficult to climb out of and insidiously difficult to detect in yourself.
        "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

          Originally posted by BraveUlysesses View Post
          That is a good point about TYT. I think for at least some centrists when they hear some of the wackier ideas there is the tendency to believe that it wont catch on, or that its a minority position, which is pretty clearly dangerous given that politicians are indeed taking many of them seriously. Living in imagination land is a problem for all of us, its only compounded by the fact that its easy to fall into, difficult to climb out of and insidiously difficult to detect in yourself.
          Also it's easier to market the fringe ideas and parade them around in the media.

          "R/D's are literally insane and barely even American, and none of their ideas are worth listening to. And to prove our case here's a clip of an archo-femminist nazi sympathizer who wants to euthanize an endangered AR-15. Based on the internet there's at least 10 of them in your neighborhood, so you better vote R/D to make them as upset as you are!"
          「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
          撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

            Originally posted by BraveUlysesses View Post
            I think it matters when attempting to substantiate the assertion that "the majority on "the left" are openly calling for open borders" that "open borders" actually appear in the examples somewhere. I also want to point out that none of your examples were actual links, which wouldn't matter so much if you displayed a desire to honestly represent Warren's polices/positions. Characterizing expanded asylum parameters as tantamount to accepting "Has someone been mean to you?" as grounds for asylum shows that you aren't interested substantiating your points with the truth, but instead would rather wallow in hyperbole, exaggeration and sarcasm.
            I took every position right off of the Elizabeth Warren website. You shouldn't need a link to the persons website you think you'll most likely vote for but, OK

            https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/immigration

            Once again - you yourself said she's the one you'll most likely vote for right? So you should know her plans and agenda just as well as I do.

            And finally, if you can't take a little humor being thrown into the mix once in a while then you really don't want to reply to my posts or discuss things with me. I'm of the opinion that we should respect and love each other and at the same time be able to have a little fun as well.
            If I offended you then...it wasn't my intention but I won't apologize for it either. Like I wrote, if you can't take a little joke that wasn't aimed at you in any way shape or form then you shouldn't reply to my posts or interact with me in the future.
            I like to discuss things and have a laugh once in a while. If you're 100% serious with no humor allowed then you'll be offended by me - a lot.
            "Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back that is an outrage."

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

              Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
              Also it's easier to market the fringe ideas and parade them around in the media.
              These days it's less about getting to the truth and informing people it's about getting those "clicks." 100% agree with both of your posts in the thread so far.
              "Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back that is an outrage."

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

                Originally posted by BrianW View Post
                I took every position right off of the Elizabeth Warren website. You shouldn't need a link to the persons website you think you'll most likely vote for but, OK

                https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/immigration

                Once again - you yourself said she's the one you'll most likely vote for right? So you should know her plans and agenda just as well as I do.

                And finally, if you can't take a little humor being thrown into the mix once in a while then you really don't want to reply to my posts or discuss things with me. I'm of the opinion that we should respect and love each other and at the same time be able to have a little fun as well.
                If I offended you then...it wasn't my intention but I won't apologize for it either. Like I wrote, if you can't take a little joke that wasn't aimed at you in any way shape or form then you shouldn't reply to my posts or interact with me in the future.
                I like to discuss things and have a laugh once in a while. If you're 100% serious with no humor allowed then you'll be offended by me - a lot.
                I could go as far as to say that you summarized your understanding of the policies and positions on Warren's site, but you didn't "take" them directly off of the site or faithfully reproduce the. You proposed the idea of providing links and then didn't, which again I wouldn't mind if you had prioritized accuracy. I did not say anything about the likelihood of me voting for Warren, but I am familiar with her positions, which is one of the primary reasons why I disagreed with your characterizations. I too enjoy a humorous jape from time to time, but it wasn't clear to me that you were simply making a joke. Unfortunately when making jokes regarding political issues in 2019 we run the risk of being taken seriously because there are few "joke" positions that aren't being offered as serious positions by people on the internet. Then there are the people who would defend that characterization by claiming that its "practically true" or "may as well be true". It's a bit like your earlier post where you asserted that Dems & Reps practically support open borders through legislative inaction. Do you want to try and back up your assertions with earnest and accurate policy statements.
                "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

                  I summarized her positions quite accurately except for "Been mean to you " joke. I only " You proposed the idea of providing links and then didn't" in your own mind.

                  Do you want to admit the fact that you don't want to face reality? You claimed that my posts " shows that you aren't interested substantiating your points with the truth, but instead would rather wallow in hyperbole, exaggeration and sarcasm."
                  But then I post the link showing you what your top candidate for president ( or at least who I think your top candidate will be. I admit I could be wrong on that point ) plans are and you turn around and claim I'm not accurate and don't back up my assertions.

                  So apart from the mean joke that bent you all out of shape do you want to take a crack at going through my 7 point list and showing exactly how I didn't tell the truth here? How I'm wrong?

                  Or do you want to continue being disrespectful, insulting and trying to deflect because you know that, actually, I'm not wrong.
                  "Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back that is an outrage."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

                    Originally posted by BrianW View Post
                    Trump isn't in any way shape or form a "phony" when it comes to illegal immigration.
                    One of the main themes of Trump's campaign was how though he was going to be on illegal immigration. The insinuation was that his predecessor was weak on the issue. Yet he refuses to go after employers who hire illegals. Also one of his campaign promises were that he would deport all illegals yet Obama has deported more. Yet folks on the right talk about how he has kept his campaign promises. Sorry but he is very phony on the issue.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

                      Originally posted by BraveUlysesses View Post
                      It will be interesting to see if Rom was in fact referencing the so called "Dreamers Act".

                      .
                      I remember Obama suing Arizona because they were too tough on illegal immigration. Also, the theme of this thread is going after employers who hire illegals. I would say any president who doesn't do so is pro illegal immigration. I would say both Obama and Trump fit that category.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

                        Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
                        Maybe it's just a reaction proportionate to the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the far right?
                        Do you think being anti illegal immigration and being anti-immigrant is the same thing. Just asking because it seems that nowadays neither the right nor the left differentiate the two. By the way, I am half Hispanic and both my parents are immigrants. (They both came to the United States legally.) Therefore I am certainly not anti-immigrant. However I am anti illegal immigration.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

                          Originally posted by rom826 View Post
                          One of the main themes of Trump's campaign was how though he was going to be on illegal immigration. The insinuation was that his predecessor was weak on the issue. Yet he refuses to go after employers who hire illegals. Also one of his campaign promises were that he would deport all illegals yet Obama has deported more. Yet folks on the right talk about how he has kept his campaign promises. Sorry but he is very phony on the issue.
                          You do realize that he's president Trump not king or emperor Trump right? That not only is he fighting the establishment in D.C. state and federal judges have tried to block everything he's tried to do on the illegal immigration front.
                          You do realize that some cities and states have refused to cooperate with ICE and so hindered their ability to do their jobs right?

                          Trump and those in his administration are being attacked on so many sides over everything under the sun. The fact that he's gotten so much done that helps the American people in so many real ways is amazing.

                          My real questiona to you are, how can you not know what I've posted already? And since I find it hard to believe that you don't already know what I've written here why are you being intellectually dishonest about it? What do you hope to achieve?
                          "Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back that is an outrage."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

                            Originally posted by rom826 View Post
                            Do you think being anti illegal immigration and being anti-immigrant is the same thing.
                            Yes because the only people immigrating are immigrants.
                            「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
                            撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

                              Last I heard, CONGRESS passes laws.

                              Talk to your traitor democrats who control the house.
                              Those who seek God with all their heart will find Him and be given sight. Those who seek their own agenda will remain blind.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Why is the Trump administration not charging employers who knowingly hire illegal

                                Originally posted by BrianW View Post
                                I summarized her positions quite accurately except for "Been mean to you " joke. I only " You proposed the idea of providing links and then didn't" in your own mind.

                                Do you want to admit the fact that you don't want to face reality? You claimed that my posts " shows that you aren't interested substantiating your points with the truth, but instead would rather wallow in hyperbole, exaggeration and sarcasm."
                                But then I post the link showing you what your top candidate for president ( or at least who I think your top candidate will be. I admit I could be wrong on that point ) plans are and you turn around and claim I'm not accurate and don't back up my assertions.

                                So apart from the mean joke that bent you all out of shape do you want to take a crack at going through my 7 point list and showing exactly how I didn't tell the truth here? How I'm wrong?

                                Or do you want to continue being disrespectful, insulting and trying to deflect because you know that, actually, I'm not wrong.
                                You are right, I didn't acknowledge that you posted a link to Warren's policy page, You did do that after I called you on it.

                                As far as me making up the idea of providing links in my own mind, you said "I'm not sure if I can take this seriously or not. Do I really have to post links to democratic congressmen and congresswomen, governors, mayors, candidates for president in the upcoming election etc?" Now I took that to be an offer or at least an affirmation that you could and would post links in order to substantiate your claims. I can see how you may have meant this as an empty boast or a rhetorical device, so if you didn't intend for me to believe that you actually have any such links or a willingness to post them then that was my honest mistake.

                                If you feel disrespected and insulted by my honest criticism of your posts that was not my intention. It might help me if you explained what it is that I've said that hurt your feelings, that way I can avoid these areas where you are sensitive in the future when possible.

                                I believe your initial assertions were about what the "majority of the left" believes/supports, which no reproduction of Warren's positions could substantiate. I believe I pointed out how unlikely it was that you would be able to defend such an assertion, or even try. I also pointed out how even if you failed to back up your initial assertions for instance "open borders" that you would likely claim that its "close enough","may as well be" or "effectively the same thing". Anyway on to the Warren summary.






                                Originally posted by BrianW View Post
                                1. Decriminalization of entering the country without authorization.
                                Yep that is in there, With the stated intent of ending time consuming & costly criminal prosecutions for simple administrative immigration violations, and refocusing limited resources on actual criminals and real threats to the United States.

                                Originally posted by BrianW View Post
                                2. Forbidding states law enforcement from having anything whatsoever to do with immigration matters.
                                “Forbidding” is at best the least generous way to frame it, but I suppose its applicable enough. Anyway from the Warren site.

                                Originally posted by elizabethwarren.com/plans/immigration
                                There are good reasons to keep immigration enforcement and law enforcement separate. When law enforcement is forced to also handle immigration violations, people are less willing to report crimes for fear of revealing their immigration status. Combining these functions sows distrust and harms public safety.

                                Originally posted by BrianW View Post
                                3. Turning CBP and ICE into basically customs agents.
                                I initially I felt this was a mischaracterization, but I guess I really don’t know in what ways Warren’s CBP and ICE would be like customs agents in your opinion...could you explain what you mean?

                                Originally posted by BrianW View Post
                                4. Giving, or she would say acknowledging, immigrants (whether they applied for citizenship or just walked across the borders) "rights" and "due process."
                                I would say that it's more about placing restrictions or standards on immigration enforcement agencies and courts:

                                Originally posted by elizabethwarren.com/plans/immigration
                                I’ll hold immigration enforcement to the same due process standards as other law enforcement agencies — no more warrantless arrests or stops deep in the interior of our country.”
                                What is your objection to this if any?

                                Originally posted by BrianW View Post
                                5. Free healthcare for all who are in the country period. Citizen or not and whether they immigrated legally or not. Everybody's covered!
                                Yep that is in there. I actually get what the uproar is about this one.


                                Originally posted by BrianW View Post
                                6. Greatly expand asylum parameters. Are you LGBT? Asylum granted! Have you been sexually harassed? Asylum granted! Has someone been mean to you? Etc etc.
                                Even without the “Has someone been mean to you?” joke, It still feels like a glib recapitulation.
                                Here is the actual asylum statement,

                                Originally posted by elizabethwarren.com/plans/immigration
                                Affirm asylum protections. We should welcome those fleeing violence, not imprison them in cages. As president, I will reverse Trump’s efforts to stack the deck against asylum applicants. I’ll ensure that asylum seekers can safely present themselves at ports of entry for humane, efficient processing, including by ending the metering and “Remain in Mexico” policies. I’ll restore President Obama’s promise to extend asylum for those fleeing domestic or gang violence and affirm asylum protections for gender identity and sexual orientation-based asylum claims. I’ll streamline processes to eliminate the backlog of individuals waiting for an asylum adjudication. And I’ll pardon those convicted of providing food and water to migrants — because no one should go to jail simply for providing humanitarian aid to another person in need.
                                Originally posted by BrianW View Post
                                7. Completely change the court systems that handle immigration and even put in her own hand picked judges to handle cases. Because they aren't really immigrants regardless of the situation they're migrants with rights.
                                Again your summary seems to intentionally insinuate that there is something nefarious here, as opposed to what is actually on her site:

                                Originally posted by elizabethwarren.com/plans/immigration
                                i’ll work to create a credible, independent system by passing legislation establishing Article I judicial review for immigration cases modeled on our federal courts. I’ll deploy smart efficiency measures, beginning by restoring judges’ ability to prioritize and manage their own dockets. And my administration will recruit highly qualified immigration judges with a diverse set of legal experiences so that everyone receives appropriate justice.
                                "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X