Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


#644

Your post brings to mind the movie. If you haven’t seen it, you should. Great Charleton Heston movie.


#645

Eisenhower lowered illegal immigration by making it LEGAL. I can lower the burglary rate by making IT “legal”, too.


#646

You said that’s not a problem, Slim. So were you lying then, or are you lying now? Either way, you’re a liar.


#647

? I did not lie, no where did I deny there are uninoculated people.

You’re playing games again qix. Outrage BS is still BS.

And playing games is still being insincere.


#648

Nope; they were screened, they had visas, they were put onto lists, they were matched with employers.

Actual illegal immigrants don’t do any of that.

Eisenhower solved the problem by using different means.


#649

Nope: Eisenhower lowered illegal immigration by making illegals LEGAL. Period…end of discussion.


#650

And he did it BEFORE the Welfare State when people in the United States had to support themselves; those who came here WANTED to be free and have opportunity as opposed to leaching off the citizens while hating the United States and everything it stands for.


#651

Dave, you didn’t refute the point.

They had visas, they were screened, they were put on lists.

None of which illegal immigrants do.

You can’t explain this away. You haven’t even tried.


#652

It’s so simple even a liberal should be able to understand it. Eisenhower rounded up a bunch of illegals and gave them work visas provided they had an American citizen to vouch for them. All that amounts to is “legalizing” illegal aliens…period.


#653

You skipped more than half the process.

It started with them going to Farmers asking for names.

It continued with them putting sign up lists in Mexico.

And continued yet still with screening.

The same screening you’d go through if you entered the guest worker program some other way.

And which is equally more screening, than an actual illegal immigrant goes through. Which you can’t deny.


#654

So, just to recap:

Illness by immigrants is low risk. The only case that can even be brought to leverage on it is one where no one died, and most of the infected were other migrants.

More people were put at risk by the outbreak in Portland caused by anti-vaxxers. Which itself barely anyone heard of.

What it comes down to, is that edge cases don’t drive policy. Not in a society that can prioritize.


#655

What do you think OUR society is giving top “priority?” Hint: It ISN’T climate change, abortion on demand or open borders.


#656

Which serves to prove the point.

The Spotlight fallacy makes people think edge cases are more prominent than they actually are.

It makes liberals think gun violence is rising.

it makes parents give into “stranger danger” and helicopter tactics.

The failure to prioritize threats, and contrast the aggregate of actual lived effects, means people allow their viewpoints to be reactive. Which when empowered creates poor or overactive policy.


#657

This story is two years old but, as far as I am concerned, settles the question of The Wall, maximum border security enforcement and reform of our immigration/asylum laws:

Police in a U.S. town bordering Mexico have apprehended an undocumented, Middle Eastern woman in possession of the region’s gas pipeline plans, law enforcement sources tell Judicial Watch. Authorities describe the woman as an “Islamic refugee” pulled over during a traffic stop by a deputy sheriff in Luna County, New Mexico which shares a 54-mile border with Mexico. County authorities alerted the U.S. Border Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) has been deployed to the area to investigate, sources with firsthand knowledge of the probe confirm.

‘Islamic Refugee’ With Gas Pipeline Plans Arrested in New Mexico Border County


#658

Simple solution to the immense backlog of court cases involving illegal immigration:

PLEA BARGAINING:

You wanna contest deportation with your court appointed lawyer in our overwhelmed court system with your phony asylum claim? Fine and dandy, but if you lose you are gonna spend some quality time in our prison system and then we’ll kick your a$$ out.


#659

It’s not true:

“We’re just as confused as you are. We heard nothing about it and contacted the Luna County sheriff’s department to see what they said. The story appears to be completely, one hundred percent fabricated and we have no knowledge of anything like that happening.”

– U.S. Customs and Border Protection

There’s no names, no records of an arrest, nothing. Even 2 years on, the only source for this is Judicial Watch.

What this shows, is that you’ve judged this story emotionally, and you don’t follow up if it fits what you suspect.

And I can’t trust people on topics they judge emotionally; is too easy for someone to BS themselves when they do that, which means you’re equally BS’ing me. Even if you don’t realize you’re doing it.

Judicial Watch equally is a source I’ll never trust again. They’ve fallen into a pattern where they cite sources they don’t name, report things with scant details, that later prove to be false. And when they’re proven false, they don’t release retractions.

Which means the mindset JW has is pathological; it’s not truth-seeking. It’s all about vindicating the suspicion; that the truth becomes a casualty “sometimes” is acceptable to them.

But it’s not to me.


#660

When did you “contact the Sheriff’s office,” AS?


#661

I didn’t , CBP did. And CBP was asked by the source I linked to.

And neither CBP, nor any Law enforcement agency, has made any press release about this event.

Which condemns it as false.


#662

So both hearsay and lack of hearsay are the solid foundations for your arguments?

Do you ever read what you write?


#663

Lack of evidence, and an interview with CBP, who denied it.

You can’t make the case RET. You’d have to first accuse CBP of lying.

Your knee-jerk gunning of me leads you to making claims no rational person would make.

Time to cut it out and be civil, wouldn’t you say? Or am I the only one capable of doing that?