its_baddude wrote:
Sanctuary cities do violate federal law. That is why they are being sued. When they get cleared in courts for not violating federal law, then you can say they are not violating federal law.
In the United States the presumption is that they are not violating the law until it's proved before the court that they are in violation.
It may work differently where you live.
And immigration forces do not have the bandwidth to find and deport all undocumented immigrants.
So, the norm was to go after the those that are criminals.
This administration's method is to randomly go after everyone.
Since they can only do so much, this random approach means many law abiding immigrants get deported and more criminals than before get to stay.
L L wrote:
Count Chocula wrote:
Is it so hard to admit that some illegal immigrants hold jobs that could otherwise be held by willing American citizens? Is it so hard to admit that some illegal immigrants came to the USA to profit from the illegal drug trade, but most are trying to make a honest living doing work that Americans don't want?
You know I am on the left so I will answer from my perspective.
"Willing American citizens" want to be paid more that what the illegal immigrants will accept.
The problem lies with the bosses who hire them. That is the illegal act. And they are the ones undercutting willing and available to work American citizens.
But these immigrants keep costs down which often get passed on to consumers, so all of our stuff is cheaper.
And while there are some willing Americans, they would really rather have better jobs anyway.
So granting legal status to these immigrants helps in many ways, including the economic contribution.
And with unemployment so low, they are needed.
(That's my Leftist Math)
Yes, some come to profit from the drug trade. It's caused by American drug demand, but it is bad. They are bad people.
They should be prosecuted like any other criminals and in this case, deported.
Yeah, I agree with just about all of what you said. It's no secret that higher wages means higher prices for the consumer (what, you think a company would be willing to take a profit cut? /s). And I certainly don't blame people for coming illegally and trying to do work that is available. That falls on the employers, like you said.
You do periodically see stories about restaurant owners or other successful businessmen who are getting deported after being in the country illegally for decades. In those cases, an American would certainly be willing to take that job. However, if someone has created a successful business, I don't really see the point in deporting them, because they are certainly contributing to the country.
its_baddude wrote:
Sanctuary cities do violate federal law. That is why they are being sued. When they get cleared in courts for not violating federal law, then you can say they are not violating federal law.
The slavery argument is not the correct argument for resisting federal law. It is quite the opposite. When slavery was outlawed by the federal government, states tried to secede from the Union. The civil war ensued to enforce federal law.
Sanctuary cities DO NOT violate Federal law.
Until the courts say different, stop making that stupid argument.
[/quote]
How exactly do "sanctuary cities" violate federal law? All they really do is instruct local law enforcement to focus on local crime and not get involved with the enforcement of federal laws. This is both legal and beneficial to effective policing.
So again, what federal law do you think is being broken by not committing local resources to the enforcement of federal laws?
Count Chocula wrote:
I find the whole 'illegal immigration' debate kind of amusing, honestly.
Is it, "illegal immigrants are taking all of our jobs!" or is it "illegal immigrants are sucking up our welfare because they don't work!"
Democrats will argue that every illegal immigrant is just a hard-working, honest person who is trying to help their family. Republicans will argue that illegal immigrants are murderers, terrorists, etc. in addition to job thieves.
Is it so hard to admit that some illegal immigrants hold jobs that could otherwise be held by willing American citizens? Is it so hard to admit that some illegal immigrants came to the USA to profit from the illegal drug trade, but most are trying to make a honest living doing work that Americans don't want? There isn't a one-size-fits-all response, unless you support deporting all illegal immigrants (which would be lawful, albeit somewhat inhumane).
I would support some sort of system where, if you've managed to live in the US for at least 15 years without a criminal record, the government says "Hey, you win because we couldn't find you", and it allows a path to amnesty and citizenship.
Actually, I bet you would find it difficult to find a single Democrat who "argue(s) that every illegal immigrant is just a hard-working, honest person who is trying to help their family." You would also be hard pressed to find a Republican who will not "admit that some illegal immigrants came to the USA to profit from the illegal drug trade, but most are trying to make a honest living doing work that Americans don't want."
Thus is appears that you are setting up absurd positions for you to then argue against. I believe that the term for this is "attacking a straw man."
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be 'attacking a straw man'."
///
I say this most respectfully.
Count Chocula wrote:
You do periodically see stories about restaurant owners or other successful businessmen who are getting deported after being in the country illegally for decades.
Are you talking about Babu from Seinfeld?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN29X2HCKpUJeff Wigand wrote:
its_baddude wrote:
I read the story and don't see anything wrong. The media is hyping stuff up. Can you please explain what you think Trump did wrong? Setup a communication channel with Russia for the presidency?
If there's nothing wrong, then why lie about it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-gathers-evidence-that-2016-seychelles-meeting-was-effort-to-establish-back-channel-to-kremlin/2018/03/07/b6a5fb8c-224b-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html
This^. Prince is especially f*cked.
This involves money laundering and political influence. Russian/UAE money >>> shell companies >>> Trump campaign/administration >>> influence US policy.
The public also just learned that Kushner went to Qatar asking for loans for his NYC property. They declined. Kushner got the UAE and Saudis to implement a blockade against Qatar. Oops.
Kushner is especially f*cked.
And it all leads to Donald Trump. Or is it David Dennison?
PIO! wrote:
Count Chocula wrote:
I find the whole 'illegal immigration' debate kind of amusing, honestly.
Is it, "illegal immigrants are taking all of our jobs!" or is it "illegal immigrants are sucking up our welfare because they don't work!"
Democrats will argue that every illegal immigrant is just a hard-working, honest person who is trying to help their family. Republicans will argue that illegal immigrants are murderers, terrorists, etc. in addition to job thieves.
Is it so hard to admit that some illegal immigrants hold jobs that could otherwise be held by willing American citizens? Is it so hard to admit that some illegal immigrants came to the USA to profit from the illegal drug trade, but most are trying to make a honest living doing work that Americans don't want? There isn't a one-size-fits-all response, unless you support deporting all illegal immigrants (which would be lawful, albeit somewhat inhumane).
I would support some sort of system where, if you've managed to live in the US for at least 15 years without a criminal record, the government says "Hey, you win because we couldn't find you", and it allows a path to amnesty and citizenship.
Actually, I bet you would find it difficult to find a single Democrat who "argue(s) that every illegal immigrant is just a hard-working, honest person who is trying to help their family." You would also be hard pressed to find a Republican who will not "admit that some illegal immigrants came to the USA to profit from the illegal drug trade, but most are trying to make a honest living doing work that Americans don't want."
Thus is appears that you are setting up absurd positions for you to then argue against. I believe that the term for this is "attacking a straw man."
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be 'attacking a straw man'."
///
I say this most respectfully.
That's fair. My intent was to call out the extreme ends of the argument while still recognizing that each party has at least some actual reasoning for their comparatively moderate positions . However, that does not mean that those extreme positions are logical or practical. I did not mean to suggest that just because someone belongs to the Democratic party means that they want open borders, or that everyone in the Republican party wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. And this was certainly not intended as an attack on any particular individual in either party.
L L wrote:
Count Chocula wrote:
You do periodically see stories about restaurant owners or other successful businessmen who are getting deported after being in the country illegally for decades.
Are you talking about Babu from Seinfeld?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN29X2HCKpU
Haha, I was actually thinking of this story:
https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/granger-restaurant-owner-roberto-beristain-deported/article_77635bc8-1a58-11e7-a694-1741825be474.htmlBut art imitates life, or vice versa I suppose
An owner doesn't really take a job.
They create jobs.
L L wrote:
An owner doesn't really take a job.
They create jobs.
In this case, Roberto took over as owner of the restaurant. I don't know the specifics but I would guess that other people could have done that. I agree though that in general, nothing is stopping an American citizen from starting their own restaurant.
What's important is that we stop chain migration (Melania Trump's parents).
And people staying through anchor babies (like Baron Trump or Ivana staying through Ivanka, Don Jr and Eric).
We need good real Americans, like Tiffany Trump.
This part of the broader problem of polarizing every single issue as if people only think in the extremes. Many on the right will blame the MSM for that, and I agree to some extent, but have to say depending on your news agency of choice, this supposed imposition of opinion or bias is of differing magnitudes. FOX is very blatant in their insinuations, and it is common to see one of their reporters on all-out rants against the left. CNN is obviously left-leaning, but they don't stoop as low in broadcasting their bias.
My point is, if you've been relying on the media to feed you opinions or reinforce the ones you are already have then you can only come out even more biased. My contention with the tough line conservatives is that they have for a while attacked intellectualism and academia, which is 1) a distraction from their underperformance and lack of flexibility in an ever-progressive and changing world, 2) desperation move to keep their herd in check so they do not lose support ~ we support you, especially if you are uneducated; and 3) a more perverse take - there is evidence that the right enables and encourages the corrosion of education.
Not surprising when they saw a seemingly successful person who looks, talks and appears to be uneducated just like them they thought he could relate and chose him. Sadly, many of sticking to their choice even if just to continue opposing the left, never mind that this POTUS is a complete waste and embarrassment.
In addition,
Spectrum server (Devos family, i.e. Prince's sister) >>> Trump Tower server >>> Alfa Bank (Russia).
This is a huge (or YUGE) criminal enterprise, involving hundreds of people. As I said, the MSM is just now putting the puzzle pieces together. Crazy times. Fortunately, rule of law is prevailing. Mueller is a patriot unlike Trump, Kushner, Manafort, Prince, Ryan, Rohrabacher, Nunes, and many, many others. If the corruption didn't extend to Congress, even a Republican-controlled Congress would have started impeachment proceedings by now (for obstruction of justice).
130000 wrote:
Stormy Daniels!!!
The Daniels/Dennison affair is nothing burger UNLESS there was a payoff before the election. If so, we're talking a felony and Cohen and Trump have additional legal troubles.
The affair itself doesn't bother me, but that said, I have a question for Trumpers. Why don't you seem to care? Where is the moral outrage? Because had this been reported about Obama you would be having an aneurysm.
nontrumper wrote:
130000 wrote:
Stormy Daniels!!!
The Daniels/Dennison affair is nothing burger UNLESS there was a payoff before the election. If so, we're talking a felony and Cohen and Trump have additional legal troubles.
The affair itself doesn't bother me, but that said, I have a question for Trumpers. Why don't you seem to care? Where is the moral outrage? Because had this been reported about Obama you would be having an aneurysm.
In 3, 2, 1 Gary will post that Republicans grew tired of being victim to the Democrats' dirty games so now it's justified that their side plays dirty too (in this case extended to moral issues as well). Great logic!
Gary and others think there is a good level of equivalence here, hence the constant pointing to Bill, Hillary and Obama... it's all they have left to defend and justify the disaster in the WH. Gotta love the logic.
Count Chocula wrote:
PIO! wrote:
Actually, I bet you would find it difficult to find a single Democrat who "argue(s) that every illegal immigrant is just a hard-working, honest person who is trying to help their family." You would also be hard pressed to find a Republican who will not "admit that some illegal immigrants came to the USA to profit from the illegal drug trade, but most are trying to make a honest living doing work that Americans don't want."
Thus is appears that you are setting up absurd positions for you to then argue against. I believe that the term for this is "attacking a straw man."
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be 'attacking a straw man'."
///
I say this most respectfully.
That's fair. My intent was to call out the extreme ends of the argument while still recognizing that each party has at least some actual reasoning for their comparatively moderate positions . However, that does not mean that those extreme positions are logical or practical. I did not mean to suggest that just because someone belongs to the Democratic party means that they want open borders, or that everyone in the Republican party wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. And this was certainly not intended as an attack on any particular individual in either party.
That's fair.
And those are good points.
Please do so as of right now, you sound totally ignorant.
Trollminator wrote:
nontrumper wrote:
The Daniels/Dennison affair is nothing burger UNLESS there was a payoff before the election. If so, we're talking a felony and Cohen and Trump have additional legal troubles.
The affair itself doesn't bother me, but that said, I have a question for Trumpers. Why don't you seem to care? Where is the moral outrage? Because had this been reported about Obama you would be having an aneurysm.
In 3, 2, 1 Gary will post that Republicans grew tired of being victim to the Democrats' dirty games so now it's justified that their side plays dirty too (in this case extended to moral issues as well). Great logic!
Gary and others think there is a good level of equivalence here, hence the constant pointing to Bill, Hillary and Obama... it's all they have left to defend and justify the disaster in the WH. Gotta love the logic.
Yeah, just think if you accepted everything wrong the left has done, you might just sound objective. But...
It doesn't matter what the title of the thread is, you've deviated as much as anyone else. People compare, that's what they do. Are you "people", or a mindless turd?
Hillary Clinton lost. You were super confident she had it in the bag, that it wouldn't even be remotely close. You then turn to blaming ads on Russia, propaganda on a popular website, etc... It's called excuse making, and you do it over and over.
Hillary Clinton winning the election would have done what differently for the country? Her and her husband with the numerous financial scams would have ended, or gotten worse?
When a lady comes forward and claims that Hillary was hitting on female interns, you call her a liar or say "who cares?" When that lady ends up dead days before she was to formally complain, you say it's just a coincidence. When someone comes forward with something on Trump (to obviously cash in), you celebrate it as gospel (whether it be true or false).
You'll be on here for the next few years complaining, begging to be heard and recognized as knowledgable on a subject that very few will ever have the "real details" on.
Carry on, I usually check back every couple months and get a huge chuckle at you hypocrites.
RepDemLeRi wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
In 3, 2, 1 Gary will post that Republicans grew tired of being victim to the Democrats' dirty games so now it's justified that their side plays dirty too (in this case extended to moral issues as well). Great logic!
Gary and others think there is a good level of equivalence here, hence the constant pointing to Bill, Hillary and Obama... it's all they have left to defend and justify the disaster in the WH. Gotta love the logic.
Yeah, just think if you accepted everything wrong the left has done, you might just sound objective. But...
It doesn't matter what the title of the thread is, you've deviated as much as anyone else. People compare, that's what they do. Are you "people", or a mindless turd?
Hillary Clinton lost. You were super confident she had it in the bag, that it wouldn't even be remotely close. You then turn to blaming ads on Russia, propaganda on a popular website, etc... It's called excuse making, and you do it over and over.
Hillary Clinton winning the election would have done what differently for the country? Her and her husband with the numerous financial scams would have ended, or gotten worse?
When a lady comes forward and claims that Hillary was hitting on female interns, you call her a liar or say "who cares?" When that lady ends up dead days before she was to formally complain, you say it's just a coincidence. When someone comes forward with something on Trump (to obviously cash in), you celebrate it as gospel (whether it be true or false).
You'll be on here for the next few years complaining, begging to be heard and recognized as knowledgable on a subject that very few will ever have the "real details" on.
Carry on, I usually check back every couple months and get a huge chuckle at you hypocrites.
Deflection at its best. Can't defend Trump, so let's bring up HRC. The election was 16 months ago and HRC is still the only arguing point from Trumpers.
Again... can you address the hypocrisy?
If it was reported that Obama's lawyer had paid off a porn star 11 days before an election to keep her quiet, you would be having an aneurysm. Why the double standard?