Are Americans Ok With Illegal Immigrants Coming Into Their Country? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Are Americans Ok With Illegal Immigrants Coming Into Their Country?
in Immigration

By TKDBTKDB 102 Pts edited February 10


Or if they came here on a temporary visa, and over stayed their visas, are you as well comfortable with that common place practice, of those individuals who are staying in the country illegally, on your tax dollars? 

Are you maybe OK as well, with some of the individuals in your country as well, trying to Socialize your country, with their apparent, (Socialist Ideals?)

Socialize your country, for the illegal immigrants, who have been coming to this country illegally, since the late 1980's?

Do you maybe view those, 300 sanctuary cities, who are, and have been giving sanctuary to those 11-22 million illegal immigrants, are you OK, with that practice, of giving those illegal immigrants sanctuary, while they are in the United States of America, underneath your very noses?

Are you OK, with some of the businesses who are, and have been utilizing those same illegal immigrants, to do work for them, by breaking the IRCA law, that former President Reagan signed into law back in 1986? 

Are you OK, with roughly 300 illegal immigrants, coming into the United States illegally each day?

Some of the ranchers who live along the southern border, have been dealing with, and living with the illegal immigrants who have been coming through their properties for years?

How do you feel about that? (Does is it maybe upset you, or do you maybe view it, as just bad luck, that those ranchers happened to be living, along the Border, where the illegal immigrants come into the country illegally, and are tresspassing into the country illegally as well?

And do those political representatives from both sides of the political aisles, who are apparently maybe pro illegal immigrant in their individual stances, and support the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)?

Do they maybe speak for you, or when it comes to your stances on the illegal immigrants and their efforts for coming into the United States illegally, do you feel that they should be rewarded for their law breaking efforts with amnesty? 

https://www-breitbart-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/03/nancy-pelosi-promises-pass-illegal-alien-amnesty-dream-act/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/03/nancy-pelosi-promises-pass-illegal-alien-amnesty-dream-act/

Some excerpts from the article:

"Nancy Pelosi Promises to Pass Illegal Alien Amnesty via Dream Act"

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) promised over the weekend to pass the Dream Act in the new Congress, which would provide amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

Pelosi, who will likely become the next speaker of the House in January, said in a statement on Saturday that she will work to pass the Dream Act with her new House Democrat majority."

“America draws strength from our long, proud heritage as a nation of immigrants. In the Majority, Democrats will work to reverse the Republicans’ destructive anti-immigrant agenda,” Pelosi contended. “Our House Democratic Majority will once again pass the Dream Act to end the uncertainty and fear inflicted on patriotic young men and women across the country.”

Pelosi released the statement in response to a letter from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which urged Pelosi to take up legislation in the first 100 days of the new term to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) illegal aliens and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) refugees. The Hispanic Caucus stressed that any new legislation should include a “pathway to citizenship,” “an end to immigration laws that tear families apart,” an end to the “militarization of our borderlands,” and a “recommitment to our nation’s founding ideals as a place of refuge for those seeking protection at our borders.”

“Undocumented immigrants work hard, obey the laws, and pay taxes. They are our friends and neighbors. They are part of the American social fabric and deserve a pathway to the American dream,” the Hispanic group added in the letter.

Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), one of the lawmakers who signed the letter to Pelosi, told CBS News that Democrats should move “expeditiously” in January to pass legislation to shield illegal immigrants and TPS refugees from deportation, without funding a wall on America’s southern border.

“I think the Dream Act should be taken on alone, with no poison pills attached to it,” Espaillat said.

President Donald J. Trump and congressional Republicans contended they could only consider some form of amnesty for illegal aliens if it were tied to wall funding as well as pro-American immigration reform such as E-Verify, ending chain migration, and ending the diversity lottery.

Espaillat said, “These young people are still in limbo. Had it not been for the courts, they would probably be underground. They would be in the shadows.”

So do you find it, fair or unfair, that the 11-22 illegal immigrants illegally living in the country right now deserve amnesty?

They deserve to be rewarded for their years worth of coming into the United States illegally, and at your expense, meaning your tax dollars? 

Zombieguy1987George_Horse
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • I'm just fine with it. Next question!
    Zombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenGeorge_Horse
  • piloteer said:
    I'm just fine with it. Next question!

    Nah, he's going to bombard you with other irrelevant questions 

    *grabs popcorn* this is going to be a long one

    piloteerPlaffelvohfen
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • I have not met a single individual who I would be able to tell is an illegal immigrant. All people I have met are just living their lives. 

    I do not read conspiracy websites like Breitbart, so I have not been scared into oblivion by mythical threats. So yes, I feel very comfortable in the US, even though I am not a citizen (yet)!

    Oh, and before you say, "You probably live far away from the border" - I was in El Paso just last month. Felt just as safe there, as I do here. The police cars everywhere were slightly disconcerting, but I have never had any issues with the police either, so it was more of a subconscious feeling based on the awareness of how much authority they hold over me.

    I get much less comfortable when I read posts like this though. I do not want to live in a country with people with nationalistic views in it. Luckily, such people seem to be overall a small minority (even if a vocal one), so I rarely cross paths with them.
    Zombieguy1987whiteflamePlaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    @piloteer

    Are you familiar with the IRCA law, thats been a law since 1986? 

    Do you agree, that those criminal illegal immigrants, deserve amnesty after breaking the laws of this country to do so?

    And if so why do those criminal illegal immigration deserve such a pass?

    @Zombieguy1987

    Forgo your popcorn, and answer the same above questions?

    Zombieguy1987
  • We need to have bipartisan agreement on immigration. I say build the wall, AND create a pathway to citizenship for people already here. Also, seperating families is cruel.
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    edited February 9
    @MayCaesar

    I'm pro community, pro law abiding, pro family, pro kids, and pro United States of America.

    And those who are pro illegal immigrant minded, do not speak for me.

    I feel sad for the ranchers living on the border because of their properties, and having to deal with the actions of the illegal immigrants, since the late 1980's.

    And those families that have lost loved ones to the criminal actions of the illegal immigrants committing their crimes, those very same illegal immigrants, shouldn't have been in the country to begin with, right or wrong?

    Or is it more right to be an illegal immigrant, in the United States, and it's maybe wrong to be a citizen, who believes in the laws of the country, and then to watch those same IRCA laws being abused, and then to watch those same illegal immigrants, getting amnesty granted to them, for breaking the laws of this country? 

    So apparently, for cheap labor, the reward given to the law breaking illegal immigrant, because of their cheap labor, is watching them being gifted amnesty? 

    So, to those families, that had family members killed by some of the illegal immigrants, what have, or might  they get in return for their losses?

    Does anyone who supports those illegal immigrants, who are, and have been in the US, illegaly for years now, might you have an answer to that question? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    "na·tion·al·ism
    /ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
    noun
    1. identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."
    So what does the United States of America have to do with the term (Nationalism?)

    Because I'm not seeing the connection?

    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:
    "na·tion·al·ism
    /ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
    noun
    1. identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."
    So what does the United States of America have to do with the term (Nationalism?)

    Because I'm not seeing the connection?

    Maybe because you don't zero research about anything, but make irrelevant comments or fallacies for arguments 

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    Can you prove me wrong? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    Do you feel bad for the farmers who could be considered criminals because they hired illegal immigrants who work for far less than minimum wage? Would you feel bad for consumers of produce and meat when they have to pay as much as three or four times the price for food when illegal immigrant workers are kicked out? Will you feel bad for the taxpayers who will go bankrupt when they have to pay for finding the illegals, rounding them up, and deporting them? Did you notice that in the IRCA law, they purposely made a loophole for farmers because they knew that deporting illegal immigrants will raise the cost of food? Would you feel bad for a political party that will be destroyed when their immigration reform act only causes the cost of living to go up for all of us? Will you feel bad for yourself when I prove to everyone on this thread that illegal immigrants don't cost taxpayers money, they actually put more into taxes more than most legal citizens? 

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy

    Please, for the sake of your intellectual credentials, actually READ the article and retain the information. I want a full summary in your next post. Come on TKDB, I know you can do this. We're all counting on you here. Just this one time, show us you can do this. Make us proud!!!!
  • Wow, Debra did not like my last post. 
  • TKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Can you prove me wrong? 

    uuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmm…….

    Just go to the Who won the shutdown debate and @whiteflame kept pointing out how you kept using fallacies and going off topic...

    I don't know why you don't just accept the criticism and do better 

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • To a degree, we kind of have to be comfortable with illegal immigrants, simply because they’re impossible to stop entirely. Accepting what we cannot meaningfully change the reality of having a large illegal immigrant population, especially considering the insane costs associated with mass deportation and depletion of communities that would result from getting rid of the ones we have, is essential to addressing the problem. If you’re uncomfortable with that population, what is your proposal to get rid of it?
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1451 Pts
    edited February 9
    @TKDB

    You constantly talk about people who suffered at the hands of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. Why don't you talk about people who suffered at the hands of legal immigrants who have committed crimes? Or native-born citizens who have committed crimes? What is it about illegal immigrants that makes their crimes special?

    Is an illegal immigrant killing someone somehow worse, than, say, an Oregon-born citizen killing someone? Should we build a wall around Oregon, so we don't have to suffer at the hands of criminals from Oregon?

    You have built some weird pyramid of presumptions, which does not make much sense upon closer inspection.
    whiteflameZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    @whiteflame

    No, we don't. And you can't force United States citizens to live with anyone who's not in the US illegaly, no criminal illegal immigrant, has that right.

    "To a degree, we kind of have to be comfortable with illegal immigrants, simply because they’re impossible to stop entirely."



    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Murder is wrong, regardless if the individual, is an illegal immigrant, or not.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesar said:
    @TKDB

    You constantly talk about people who suffered at the hands of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. Why don't you talk about people who suffered at the hands of legal immigrants who have committed crimes? Or native-born citizens who have committed crimes? What is it about illegal immigrants that makes their crimes special?

    Is an illegal immigrant killing someone somehow worse, than, say, an Oregon-born citizen killing someone? Should we build a wall around Oregon, so we don't have to suffer at the hands of criminals from Oregon?

    You have built some weird pyramid of presumptions, which does not make much sense upon closer inspection.

    That's @TTKDB/@TKDB logic for you

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • TKDB said:
    @whiteflame

    No, we don't. And you can't force United States citizens to live with anyone who's not in the US illegaly, no criminal illegal immigrant, has that right.

    "To a degree, we kind of have to be comfortable with illegal immigrants, simply because they’re impossible to stop entirely."



    Explain this to me, and be specific: how can we stop all illegal immigration to this country? Give me the play-by-play, you can include the wall if you want. Tell me precisely how we turn off the spigot of illegal immigrants coming into this country. Because unless you can do that, you should resign yourself to the reality that there will always be some amount of illegal immigration to the US, which would either put you in a perpetual state of discomfort or lead you to eventually find some comfort in their presence. If you want to live that way, go ahead. Honestly, I don't see why you'd consign yourself to such a fate.

    You're right on one thing: you can't force US citizens to live with anyone who isn't here legally. Actually, the truth is much broader: you can't force anyone in the US to live with anyone else. You can't force tolerance, let alone acceptance, either. That doesn't mean our country is somehow made better by the fact that so many people (apparently, quite like you) are so hateful in their views of illegal immigrants. The fact that you find them so utterly loathsome doesn't somehow improve our country. It certainly doesn't make the US look great to project xenophobia like you are, proclaiming that illegal immigrants are coming to kill us and destroy our country. So yes, we can't force anyone to accept the people around them. Requiring that someone accept someone else doesn't achieve actual acceptance anyway, though that seems entirely beside the point. Rather, you seem militantly against any kind of acceptance. That makes me concerned about how you would treat people you perceive as illegal immigrants, but hey, what do I know?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    When you talk about the problems coming with illegal immigrants, you should talk about the problems specific to illegal immigrants. Instead, you point at things that apply to everyone, but proceed to oppose a specific group. It is a bit like the following logic:
    1. All humans lie.
    2. Gypsies are humans, hence they lie.
    3. Lying is bad, hence gypsies are bad.
    4. Gypsies are bad, hence they should not be let in our country.
    I am not making this up, by the way; this argument is pretty common in Eastern Europe.

    Speaking of more sensible arguments, every argument I have seen so far that is specific to illegal immigrants collapses upon the slightest scrutiny. Just a few popular ones:

    Myth: Illegal immigrants steal our jobs.
    Reality: One cannot "steal a job" on a free market. In addition, you can say that about everyone, not just illegal immigrants.

    Myth: Illegal immigrants are more criminal than American-born citizens.
    Reality: Statistics does not confirm that.

    Myth: Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.
    Reality: Many of them actually do, especially those that hope to eventually be legalised. IRS is pretty flexible in this regard. Not to mention that they necessarily pay some taxes every time they go to a store, such as sale tax.

    Myth: Illegal immigrants sit on our tax-paid welfare.
    Reality: Illegal immigrants do not receive welfare from the federal government. Individual states/municipalities may have different policies, but speaking of the nation as a whole, you are wrong.

    Myth: Illegal immigrants are criminals due to crossing the US border illegally.
    Reality: It depends on the exact situation. It can be either a criminal, or a civil offence. Or (rarely) it can be neither, if the person can prove that they crossed the border out of danger to their life, for example.

    Myth: Illegal immigrants vote for Democrats every election.
    Reality: Illegal immigrants do not and cannot vote.

    ---

    Now, all this aside, there are serious arguments to use against particular subgroups of illegal immigrants. For example, I would be against letting, say, 50 million Iranians enter this country illegally. Why? Because I know what values that society as a whole promotes and believes in, and I do not want to see those people poisoning this environment.

    I think that, at least, at the modern times immigration policies should be meritocratic, rather than absent. Take givers, leave out takers. Take those who can produce some value for the economy, leave out those who will be a burden on the economy. Favor high-profile specialists, enterpreneurs, artists, sportsmen; treat with prejudice random cashiers and waiters. The former are very likely to share Western values and to be able to quickly integrate in the society; the latter, not so much.

    But you do not hear this argument often, do you? It does not sound scary, or romantic enough. Not to mention that it is much harder to learn the intricacies of the psychology of the average illegal Mexican immigrant, than to just declare all of them a threat to the national security and "build a wall".

    The US lets people from, say, Finland or France in without any fuzz. But does not let people from Mexico or Russia in without any fuzz. Why? Researching this question is what you should focus on in your anti-illegal immigration zeal, rather than citing stories from Breitbart and making arguments that eat themselves for breakfast.
    Zombieguy1987whiteflameCYDdharta
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    edited February 9
    @MayCaesar

    Why don't you go ask the illegal immigrants themselves, why they've been coming into the country illegally for years? 

    "The US lets people from, say, Finland or France in without any fuzz. But does not let people from Mexico or Russia in without any fuzz. Why? Researching this question is what you should focus on in your anti-illegal immigration zeal, rather than citing stories from Breitbart and making arguments that eat themselves for breakfast."

    If any individual comes to this country legally, after going through the proper LEGAL channels, they wont be creating any problems for themselves, will they?

    I've meet Russian people, Ukrainian people, people from Pakistan, and India, and they all became United States citizens through the process.

    And I've meet individuals from Mexico, who are US citizens as well, who went through the same process, and are US citizens also.

    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    @piloteer

    If those specific farmers are in violation of the IRCA law, then no, I don't feel bad for them. 

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

    "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty,[1] signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United Statesimmigration law. The Act[2]

    • required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
    • made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrantsknowingly;
    • legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and;
    • legalized undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language."
    Zombieguy1987
  • comfortable, with the millions of illegal immigrants who have come into your country illegally?

    You are asking me the wrong question. Of course I’m comfortable with people who immigrate illegally that question does not address the concern of why they should have been stopped. The general welfare as the limitation to any immigration explain in basic principle. It is creating a direction away from the safely issue which is supposedly taking place between all United States, at least those governed in the United States of America. The immigration is performed in a reckless manner violating the very principle so many others in a group and order struggle to maintain.

  • MayCaesar said:

    The US lets people from, say, Finland or France in without any fuzz. But does not let people from Mexico or Russia in without any fuzz. Why? Researching this question is what you should focus on in your anti-illegal immigration zeal, rather than citing stories from Breitbart and making arguments that eat themselves for breakfast.
    While most of you post is wrong, this is just stupid, May.  The 279 Fins or 2,812 French naturalized in 2017 doesn't come anywhere near the 118,559 Mexicans that were naturalized.  Even the Russians were at 5,534.  You need to put down the Chamber of Commerce Kool Aid® and take a real look at the situation.  You can do better.



    Zombieguy1987
  • Sanctuary as a new improved interpretation of slavery? The historic past which binds Mexico and the United States is strive for better and more equal independence. Again the argument that is placed upon the Mexican, Mexican American, along with all those from South America in immigration is to place them in the same basic principle, as equal, equal with all those people who are in state of a kept Union during their migration to become part of that union. This is not an argument of limited cost of labor. A state of the union address.

    Anussapiensmulier

    Old Wise Woman

    First: On her best day Nancy Pelosi will never be a wise old man before she is a lady in whole truth. Congress woman being a woman who is wise like an old man is also unrealistic as a whole truth. In truth, in whole truth she is a prime example to how woman in politics have let the United States Constitution fall to selfish accusation to avoid self-blame. Senumulier Pelosi, and right now that is a polite overstatement as a person goal created for her and other like her, may very well go down in history for being the first democrat to bring slavery back earning her the title of Stapienmulier not Senumulier as any Congress man will surely be a Stongress man. Under similar condition of Constitution.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1451 Pts
    edited February 9
    @CYDdharta

    The number of naturalised immigrants has zero to do with the quote. You know what "to let in" means, right? Finnish and French citizen do not need any visas in order to enter the US, they just need to buy a flight ticket. On the other hand, Mexicans and Russians have to apply for a visa, and even once they have obtained one, it imposes strong limitations on how long they can stay in the US, and what they can do while staying there.

    And there is a good reason for that. I was not even criticising this matter of affairs; in fact, I partially support it, as you could have figured out if you read the entirety of the argument.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    @Zombieguy1987

    @whiteflame

    @piloteer

    https://www-nationalreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/democrats-immigration-policy-even-more/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/democrats-immigration-policy-even-more/

    Some excerpts from the article:

    "Three Reasons the Left Wants Ever More Immigrants"

    "In their eyes, they are moral heroes.

    On one thing we can all agree: The Left wants more and more immigrants — including immigrants who enter or stay in the country illegally — to come to America and become American citizens.

    The question is, why?

    The first and most obvious reason is political. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, chain migration, sanctuary cities, and citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally will give the Left political power. An estimated 70 to 80 percent of Latin American immigrants will vote Democratic. So with enough new voters from Latin America alone, the Democrats would essentially be assured the presidency and Congress for decades.

    Conservatives and Republicans fool themselves when they argue that Latin Americans are “social conservatives” because they oppose abortion and support a strong nuclear family. Even to the extent that those statements are true — and regarding the second claim, it is worth noting that Latinos have the third-highest percentage of births to unwed women in America — those arguments are irrelevant. Latin Americans are overwhelmingly on the political left, and they vote accordingly. Think about the Latin American Pope Francis’s beliefs about big government, small militaries, and the social welfare state, and his contempt for capitalism (“terrorism against all humanity”) — and you know how the vast majority of Latin Americans think."

    What is likely to change Latino immigrants’ leftism? America’s public schools and universities? The Spanish-language media? The compelling outreach to them by the Republican party?

    Moreover, the Democrats don’t believe they have to compromise with a Republican president or a Republican Congress on immigration policy. They are confident they will gain control of the Senate and, quite possibly, the House this year; and they believe they will win the presidency in 2020. So, why compromise?

    The second reason for the Left’s support for virtually unlimited immigration is that one of the most enduring tenets of the Left — from Karl Marx to the present-day Democratic party and left-wing parties in Western Europe — is that the nation-state is an anachronism.

    The American Left doesn’t believe in America, just as the English Left doesn’t believe in England. That’s why the American Left supported the football players who refused to stand for the national anthem. For the Left, reverence for the national anthem and the flag is a pathetic “patriotism” celebrated by the simple-minded and the deplorable.

    Marx’s Communist Manifesto ends with an appeal to class solidarity, not national solidarity: “Proletariat of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.” The Left has never divided the world by nation-states but by economic classes. In its view, the German, Korean, and American working classes have everything in common, but these workers have nothing in common with fellow Germans, Koreans, and Americans who are not working-class.

    Thus, virtually all Communist genocides — and almost every major genocide of the 20th century was a Communist genocide — did not entail the mass murder of another nationality. Communist chairman Mao Zedong killed between 60 and 80 million people — millions of his fellow Chinese. Cambodian leader Pol Pot murdered nearly a quarter of his fellow Cambodians. Soviet leader Josef Stalin murdered about 20 million of his fellow Russians and deliberately starved 4 million Ukrainians — because of their class (the “kulaks”: peasants who owned land or even just some cows).

    That’s why the Left opposes a wall at America’s southern border. The wall signifies the affirmation of America as a distinct nation.

    The third reason is the power of feeling good about oneself. It would be difficult to overstate the significance of feeling good about oneself as a primary factor in why people adopt left-wing policies.

    Those who support bestowing American citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants — the so-called “Dreamers,” based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act — feel very good about themselves. They are the compassionate, the progressive, the enlightened.

    This is why German chancellor Angela Merkel brought a million refugees into Germany, a majority of them Middle East Muslims: She wanted to feel good about herself and Germany — especially in light of Germany’s evil history — “Look, world. We Germans really are good people.”

    "Why do Democrats support sanctuary cities, and even sanctuary states? Because, in addition to first two reasons, it enables them to feel good about themselves. In their eyes, they are moral heroes protecting the stranger, the oppressed, the marginalized, the destitute.

    If any one of these reasons accurately describes the Left’s attitude toward America and immigration, America is headed for trouble. If all three are accurate, America is headed for an existential crisis."

    The above, is very compelling and educational at the same time.

    whiteflameZombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    The number of naturalised immigrants has zero to do with the quote. You know what "to let in" means, right? Finnish and French citizen do not need any visas in order to enter the US, they just need to buy a flight ticket. On the other hand, Mexicans and Russians have to apply for a visa, and even once they have obtained one, it imposes strong limitations on how long they can stay in the US, and what they can do while staying there.

    And there is a good reason for that. I was not even criticising this matter of affairs; in fact, I partially support it, as you could have figured out if you read the entirety of the argument.

    Still a crock and you know it!!!  They need a passport at the very least.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1451 Pts
    edited February 9
    @CYDdharta

    Obtaining a passport is a matter of filling the online application and then showing up at a local governmental office. The entire process takes, at most, a couple of hours.
    And in many cases, you do not even need a passport, as many developed countries have treaties making the governments officially recognise all documentation issued by the treaty partners.

    Obtaining a visa in a Third World country, on the other hand, is impossible for the vast majority of people. For that small minority that satisfy all the requirements, the process of going through intense bureaucracy, which is both incredibly expensive and time-consuming, still does not result in any guarantees, as the ambassador has the right to deny any applicant a visa without specifying a reason for denial.
    Zombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • @TKDB

    Would you mind actually addressing the point I was making? Because you've entirely ignored it.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    Some of the points in the article are not unreasonable, but there are also just as many fallacies and misrepresentations of historical facts. And even aside from that, someone supporting something for the wrong reasons does not automatically make that something wrong.

    I will just criticise two of the notion in the article.

    1) "Communism is in favor of unrestricted immigration" - it is the exact opposite. Theoretical communism might be in favor of it, but practical communism is what really matters. All communist regimes have always enacted extremely strict emigration and immigration policies. Almost all of them prohibited people from leaving the country without getting a special permit from the government - which, in practice, was available only to the select few. They also enacted very harsh policies with regards to the population mobility. In the harshest cases, such as Fidel's Cuba, Kim Il Sung's North Korea and Stalin's Soviet Union, people had to obtain a permit in order to just travel from their village to the nearby one.
    Ironically, Trump's "wall" is much closer to the typical communist policies, than the Democrats' "let everybody in". In fact, communists have built actual walls, in Berlin and on the Korean peninsula, so that is who he wants to be in the same cart with.

    2) "Communism has never committed genocides against other nationalities" - quite the opposite. Holodomor is a historical fact, for instance, with millions Ukrainians dead as a result. Mao's regime enacted purges against multiple ethnic minorities, such as Uyghurs or Tibetans. Pol Pot selectively attacked multiple ethnicities, which he saw as being influenced from overseas.

    I am not sure why people feel the need to twist the facts so much in order to support a certain policy, when there are pretty simple and coherent arguments that can be made without twisting logic.
    Zombieguy1987whiteflameCYDdharta
  • MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    Obtaining a passport is a matter of filling the online application and then showing up at a local governmental office. The entire process takes, at most, a couple of hours.
    And in many cases, you do not even need a passport, as many developed countries have treaties making the governments officially recognise all documentation issued by the treaty partners.

    Obtaining a visa in a Third World country, on the other hand, is impossible for the vast majority of people. For that small minority that satisfy all the requirements, the process of going through intense bureaucracy, which is both incredibly expensive and time-consuming, still does not result in any guarantees, as the ambassador has the right to deny any applicant a visa without specifying a reason for denial.

    Is there a point you're trying to make?  A Mexican can visit the US using a passport, the same as a Finn.  A Mexican can move to the US using a VISA, the same as a Finn.  If you're trying to say it's harder for a Mexican to move to the US than it is for a Finn to visit the US, then you'd be correct, though I don't know what that proves.  Far more Mexicans are naturalized by the US than any other nation.  More than 1 in 7 naturalized citizens are from Mexico. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    @whiteflame

    Why dont you ask the illegal immigrants, your below questions, and see what they say?

    They broke the laws, so they can face their consequences, and leave the country.

    I refuse to pander, cater, or coddle the immigrants, who have illegally come to this country, and breaking this country's laws in the process.

    If some of the pro illegal immigration crowd, wants to pander, cater, or coddle, the illegal immigrant lawbreakers, they can feel free to do that to their hearts content.

    The United States of America deserves better. 

    Does the IRCA law, maybe upset your individual minset? 

    Or did the below article, maybe upset your mindset, as well?

    "Three Reasons the Left Wants Ever More Immigrants"

    "In their eyes, they are moral heroes.

    On one thing we can all agree: The Left wants more and more immigrants — including immigrants who enter or stay in the country illegally — to come to America and become American citizens.

    The question is, why?

    The first and most obvious reason is political. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, chain migration, sanctuary cities, and citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally will give the Left political power. An estimated 70 to 80 percent of Latin American immigrants will vote Democratic. So with enough new voters from Latin America alone, the Democrats would essentially be assured the presidency and Congress for decades.

    Conservatives and Republicans fool themselves when they argue that Latin Americans are “social conservatives” because they oppose abortion and support a strong nuclear family. Even to the extent that those statements are true — and regarding the second claim, it is worth noting that Latinos have the third-highest percentage of births to unwed women in America — those arguments are irrelevant. Latin Americans are overwhelmingly on the political left, and they vote accordingly. Think about the Latin American Pope Francis’s beliefs about big government, small militaries, and the social welfare state, and his contempt for capitalism (“terrorism against all humanity”) — and you know how the vast majority of Latin Americans think."

    What is likely to change Latino immigrants’ leftism? America’s public schools and universities? The Spanish-language media? The compelling outreach to them by the Republican party?

    Moreover, the Democrats don’t believe they have to compromise with a Republican president or a Republican Congress on immigration policy. They are confident they will gain control of the Senate and, quite possibly, the House this year; and they believe they will win the presidency in 2020. So, why compromise?

    The second reason for the Left’s support for virtually unlimited immigration is that one of the most enduring tenets of the Left — from Karl Marx to the present-day Democratic party and left-wing parties in Western Europe — is that the nation-state is an anachronism.

    The American Left doesn’t believe in America, just as the English Left doesn’t believe in England. That’s why the American Left supported the football players who refused to stand for the national anthem. For the Left, reverence for the national anthem and the flag is a pathetic “patriotism” celebrated by the simple-minded and the deplorable.

    Marx’s Communist Manifesto ends with an appeal to class solidarity, not national solidarity: “Proletariat of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.” The Left has never divided the world by nation-states but by economic classes. In its view, the German, Korean, and American working classes have everything in common, but these workers have nothing in common with fellow Germans, Koreans, and Americans who are not working-class.

    Thus, virtually all Communist genocides — and almost every major genocide of the 20th century was a Communist genocide — did not entail the mass murder of another nationality. Communist chairman Mao Zedong killed between 60 and 80 million people — millions of his fellow Chinese. Cambodian leader Pol Pot murdered nearly a quarter of his fellow Cambodians. Soviet leader Josef Stalin murdered about 20 million of his fellow Russians and deliberately starved 4 million Ukrainians — because of their class (the “kulaks”: peasants who owned land or even just some cows).

    That’s why the Left opposes a wall at America’s southern border. The wall signifies the affirmation of America as a distinct nation.

    The third reason is the power of feeling good about oneself. It would be difficult to overstate the significance of feeling good about oneself as a primary factor in why people adopt left-wing policies.

    Those who support bestowing American citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants — the so-called “Dreamers,” based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act — feel very good about themselves. They are the compassionate, the progressive, the enlightened.

    This is why German chancellor Angela Merkel brought a million refugees into Germany, a majority of them Middle East Muslims: She wanted to feel good about herself and Germany — especially in light of Germany’s evil history — “Look, world. We Germans really are good people.”

    "Why do Democrats support sanctuary cities, and even sanctuary states? Because, in addition to first two reasons, it enables them to feel good about themselves. In their eyes, they are moral heroes protecting the stranger, the oppressed, the marginalized, the destitute.

    If any one of these reasons accurately describes the Left’s attitude toward America and immigration, America is headed for trouble. If all three are accurate, America is headed for an existential crisis."

    @whiteflame

    The above article, is very compelling and educational at the same time.

    whiteflameZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    edited February 9
    @MayCaesar

    "Some of the points in the article are not unreasonable, but there are also just as many fallacies and misrepresentations of historical facts. And even aside from that, someone supporting something for the wrong reasons does not automatically make that something wrong."

    "I am not sure why people feel the need to twist the facts so much in order to support a certain policy, when there are pretty simple and coherent arguments that can be made without twisting logic."

    Instead of telling me how you feel, why not do something more constructive, and reach out to the author of the article, and tell him how you feel? 

    whiteflameZombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:

    @whiteflame

    The above article, is very compelling and educational at the same time.

    It's also not the slightest bit responsive to the points I made, nor have you in any way responded to them. I also found that @MayCaesar gave some very substantive and reasonable responses to that article, which largely show that the author has a skewed conception of communism in terms of how it functions. Again, not that that has anything at all to do with what I said. I asked you how you would prevent all illegal immigration to this country, and how your mindset that largely pushes us to view any immigrant as a threat to our basic safety is a reasonable one to hold and project as a country.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta

    It does not seem like you understand how the immigration system works. A visa is the document issued by the government that allows the individual a legal entry on the state territory. A passport is the document on which the visa is stamped. The visa only allows the entry into the US; the immigration status is what decides whether the person can actually stay in the US. In fact, the situation is possible in which the individual has a visa, but still cannot enter the country, because, while the entry itself is legal, being on the US territory is not. The opposite can also be the case. As is my case: I do not have a valid visa, but I have a valid immigration status - meaning, my being on the US territory is legal, but should I leave the US even for a second, I will not be able to come back without applying for a new visa.

    The passport alone does not allow the person to move anywhere, except for the countries with which visa waiver agreements have been reached by the person's home country. And even the passport with a visa in it does not guarantee anything.

    What point I am trying to make? You were the one who picked on one of my claims, providing the argument which has nothing to do with it. I do not know what point you were trying to make, I only know that you utterly failed at it, as usual.

    Why don't you research the subject a bit, before starting debates with people who actually have a lot of knowledge on it?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    That is kind of how back when I lived in the former USSR, whenever I criticised the local governments, people would usually respond with, "If you do not like it here, then pack your bags and leave."

    This kind of lazy arguments does not do anything logic-wise. What I do about the article you linked is my business, I merely pointed out the fallacy of using that article as an argument, as well as that article itself containing multiple fallacies.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:
    @MayCaesar

    "Some of the points in the article are not unreasonable, but there are also just as many fallacies and misrepresentations of historical facts. And even aside from that, someone supporting something for the wrong reasons does not automatically make that something wrong."

    "I am not sure why people feel the need to twist the facts so much in order to support a certain policy, when there are pretty simple and coherent arguments that can be made without twisting logic."

    Instead of telling me how you feel, why not do something more constructive, and reach out to the author of the article, and tell him how you feel? 

    TKBD, I honestly don't know what you're trying to do here if this is your response. You presented the article to reinforce your argument. It's your point now, and your opportunity to either defend it (and therefore defend a point you've presented as part of your argument) or drop it. It's no one else's obligation to take their responses elsewhere. You chose to present it here. Own it. If you can't defend it, then move on. Don't give homework to the person who gave you an answer you apparently refuse to address.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    It does not seem like you understand how the immigration system works. A visa is the document issued by the government that allows the individual a legal entry on the state territory. A passport is the document on which the visa is stamped. The visa only allows the entry into the US; the immigration status is what decides whether the person can actually stay in the US. In fact, the situation is possible in which the individual has a visa, but still cannot enter the country, because, while the entry itself is legal, being on the US territory is not. The opposite can also be the case. As is my case: I do not have a valid visa, but I have a valid immigration status - meaning, my being on the US territory is legal, but should I leave the US even for a second, I will not be able to come back without applying for a new visa.

    The passport alone does not allow the person to move anywhere, except for the countries with which visa waiver agreements have been reached by the person's home country. And even the passport with a visa in it does not guarantee anything.

    What point I am trying to make? You were the one who picked on one of my claims, providing the argument which has nothing to do with it. I do not know what point you were trying to make, I only know that you utterly failed at it, as usual.

    Why don't you research the subject a bit, before starting debates with people who actually have a lot of knowledge on it?

    I picked on your claim because it is demonstrably false.  You have yet to back up your claim "The US lets people from, say, Finland or France in without any fuzz. But does not let people from Mexico or Russia in without any fuzz."  The numbers don't lie, May; people do, but numbers don't.
    Zombieguy1987
  • I don’t feel safe in the US for a number o reasons. This is and isnt one of them.
    Zombieguy1987
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1451 Pts
    edited February 10
    @CYDdharta

    I think you might just be unable to understand my point. People from Finland or France do not need a visa to enter the US, while people from Mexico or Russia do, and that visa is extremely hard to obtain. It is much easier for the average Finnish or French person to enter the US, than it is for the average Mexican or Russian.

    How many people have been naturalised has absolutely nothing to do with it. And even speaking of naturalisation itself, your argument was still fallacious: absolute numbers do not mean anything, numbers relative to the number of people attempting naturalisation do. And those numbers are roughly equal for arrivals from all countries, since the process of obtaining citizenship is not country-specific, while the process of obtaining a visa is. That is not even mentioning that naturalisation is not required for the individual to stay in the US permanently.

    I could keep picking your argument apart, but I am bored. Try to come up with something more solid, if you do not want to be destroyed immediately by a more proficient debater.
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    edited February 10
    A hypothetical scenario:
    What is the likelihood that some of the pro illegal immigrant supporters themselves,
    (or maybe even some of the supporters, who support the sanctuary city ideologies themselves,)
    (or maybe some of the supporters who support the illegal immigrants, that maybe some of the businesses in the country, utilize them, under the table in a sense to do work for them,)
    are trying to use the internet, to try to coax, persuade, or influence, the public in general, to go along, or bend towards the pro illegal immigrant supporters ideological ways of thinking, and to mutually adopt, the pro illegal immigrant supporters mindset?
    whiteflameZombieguy1987
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 446 Pts
    edited February 10
    @MayCaesar earlier you mentioned illegal immigrants cannot vote. Just to give you something to look into. In Pennsylvania the DoT had an error that started in the mid 1990s and wasnt caught until recently where they would automatically register people to vote as they got their license photo taken. That said, even with such a pathetic flaw, from all elections from 2000-2017 there may have been 544 illegal ballots cast, out of 93 million. It can happen but this is also evidence against any secret agency or group trying to get illegals to vote, if such a group existed they would have tried to exploit that flaw. That accounted for 0.000006%(rounded up) of all ballots over that time
  • TKDB said:
    A hypothetical scenario:
    What is the likelihood that some of the pro illegal immigrant supporters themselves,
    (or maybe even some of the supporters, who support the sanctuary city ideologies themselves,)
    (or maybe some of the supporters who support the illegal immigrants, that maybe some of the businesses in the country, utilize them, under the table in a sense to do work for them,)
    are trying to use the internet, to try to coax, persuade, or influence, the public in general, to go along, or bend towards the pro illegal immigrant supporters ideological ways of thinking, and to mutually adopt, the pro illegal immigrant supporters mindset?
    Several responses.

    First off, this is just bad logic. You've provided no reason to believe that anyone here or elsewhere are somehow bought and paid for by some nebulous organization aimed at supporting illegal immigrants. Part of the problem is that I could shift the terms to whatever I want and claim there's some kind of insidious effort behind the arguments anyone is making about anything. How do we know you aren't part of some scheme to spread xenophobia, racism and fear? This hypothetical scenario you've drawn up could apply as easily to you as anyone else, here or elsewhere.

    Second, it's insulting. You're devaluing individual voices by proclaiming that those voices are essentially just mouthpieces to some organization. We're puppets spreading propaganda rather than rational, thinking people capable of logically coming to conclusions based on the available evidence. Again, I think your argument could just as easily apply to you, but if you do think this somehow just applies to us, you're essentially saying that we lack the mental capacity to come to these views on our own or disagree with each other. You're absolutely wrong on both fronts, and you only devalue your own argument by making these kinds of absurd claims as though it's some reasonable "hypothetical scenario". 

    Third, it's more deflecting. Let's assume for a moment that you're right: we are part of some propaganda machine aiming to cajole you and others into believing that you should support illegal immigrants. We're clearly not doing that good of a job (you seem just as unwilling as ever to engage with the points we're making), but we are still making logical points that are well-supported by the available evidence. We're providing objective reasons why you are wrong in your views and, whether you're willing to engage with us or not, they largely stand as uncontested. If this is some kind of insane propaganda machine, then it's got a weird way of showing it. That's like saying that presenting scientific evidence is somehow propaganda; sure, scientists are trying to convince you that something is true, but only because they have factual evidence that makes it pretty damn believable and probably want others to act with that evidence in mind. If that's propaganda, it's the kind of propaganda that we absolutely need to continue.
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1451 Pts
    edited February 10
    @TKDB

    You seem to assume that not being scared of illegal immigrants equates being a "pro illegal immigrant supporter". This is a false dichotomy. There are more possible states, than only "in love with illegal immigrants" and "cannot sleep at night over the fear of illegal immigrants".

    There are definitely people on the Internet who support illegal immigrants via fallacious arguments. There are also people on the Internet who scaremonger with regards to illegal immigrants via fallacious arguments. And we have one of them in this very thread.

    Can you imagine that the vast majority of people in this country do not particularly care about illegal immigrants? People just go about their lives, instead of constantly worrying about something that can happen to them with negligibly small probability. Try to spend less time in the media space, and more time doing something productive or learning something useful - and you will see just how calmer you get in life.


    @WordsMatter ;

    Well, there are always some flaws in the system. To me, the presence of those flaws simply means that the system must be improved. In fact, I would argue that people exploiting systematic flaws is generally a good thing, as it indicates the possible venues for improvement.

    Zombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    @whiteflame

    You're entitled to your opinion.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    You're entitled to your opinion.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Please point out who you're talking about?

    "There are definitely people on the Internet who support illegal immigrants via fallacious arguments. There are also people on the Internet who scaremonger with regards to illegal immigrants via fallacious arguments. And we have one of them in this very thread."
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    edited February 10
    @MayCaesar

    "Can you imagine that the vast majority of people in this country do not particularly care about illegal immigrants? People just go about their lives, instead of constantly worrying about something that can happen to them with negligibly small probability. Try to spend less time in the media space, and more time doing something productive or learning something useful - and you will see just how calmer you get in life."

    Can you imagine the amount of families who have been affected by the loss of a loved one who was killed by an illegal immigrant?

    They dont get to go about their daily lives, like the families who haven't lost a family member to any crimes committed by an illegal immigrant do they? 

    What from your own mindset, constitutes something that can happen to someone with a negligibly small probability outside of: murder, sexual assault, assualt and battery, and robbery? 

    "People just go about their lives, instead of constantly worrying about something that can happen to them with negligibly small probability."

    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB ;

    The Idea of immigration control is overall welfare of those people who are held in a united state inside the borders of America in Constitutional common defense. The idea is to promote the following of the United States Constitution to other Nations outside our union, this by whey of their citizens who travel the world. The U.S. Constitution is to form a more perfect union by use of basic principle and legal precedent.

    We now have cities and entire states who are part of that union who simple no longer feel they are, or need be obligated to judicial constitutional separation, so are simply trying to use the process without paying its cost set by self-value and assigned responsibilities it holds. The idea is open democracy to drive a type economy which is not limited on its independence in both area of taxation and volume.

    Again keep in mind the drug War creates a sub-economy as separation exists between credit and Federal Note, as not all forms of payments are legal on all debt. Meaning a payment method can quickly be abused by legislation of unconstitutional law, or as the printing press for counterfeit Federal Reserved Notes which holds a public registration and states quite clearly legal tender for all debt.

    The risk here is that any or all new voters have not been exposed to self-incrimination by unconstitutional laws over years of abuse, which can disqualify many long term registered voters legally inside the republic On top of this any payment for labor held by investment over time can simply become disqualified as the understanding of any method of payment come with the much greater risk of receiving it timely, or at all.


  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    edited February 10
    @John_C_87

    @MayCaesar

    @whiteflame

    @Zombieguy1987

    https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2015/07/22/alien-crime-wave-in-texas-611234-crimes-2993-murders/

    Some excerpts to the mentioned article:

    "Illegal Alien Crime Wave in Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders

    The murder of Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero in San Francisco by an illegal alien is the most familiar example of a crime committed by an alien.  But an unreleased internal report by the Texas Department of Public Safety reveals that aliens have been involved in thousands of crimes in Texas alone, including nearly 3,000 homicides."

    "PJ Media obtained a never-before-released copy of a Texas DPS report on human smuggling containing the numbers of crimes committed by aliens in Texas.   According to the analysis conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, foreign aliens committed 611,234 unique crimes in Texas from 2008 to 2014, including thousands of homicides and sexual assaults.

    The report describes an alien crime wave of staggering proportions exacerbated by federal officials unwilling to enforce immigration laws.

    The Texas DPS report says well over 100,000 individual criminal aliens have been booked into Texas jails: 

    From October 2008 to April 2014, Texas identified a total 177,588 unique criminal alien defendantsbooked into Texas county jails. These individuals have been identified through the Secure Communities initiative, in which Texas has participated since October 2008.

    There are almost certainly more criminal aliens who haven't been identified as aliens.  The 177,588 criminal aliens identified by Texas through the Secure Communities initiative only can tag criminal aliens who had already been fingerprinted.  Arrests of illegal aliens who have not been fingerprinted prior to arrest are not included in these arrests numbers derived from the Secure Communities initiative.

    That means that the already stratospheric aggregate crime totals would be even higher if crimes by many illegal aliens who are not in the fingerprint database were included.

    The Secure Communities initiative is an information-sharing program between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. Presumably, both departments would have data on the number of fingerprint searches conducted that revealed a criminal act involved an alien.

    Texas has been ground zero in illegal alien crossings into the United States.  The Texas DPS report shows that in the Rio Grande Valley, 154,453 illegal aliens were apprehended in 2013.

    Other Texas sectors saw approximately 86,000 illegal aliens apprehended.  All other sectors combined on the southern border only saw approximately 170,000 illegal alien apprehensions in the same time period.  The Obama administration releases a sizable portion of the illegal aliens captured.

    The criminal aliens identified by the Texas Department of Public Safety have been responsible for the most heinous types of crimes -- and in astonishing numbers. From the Texas DPS report:

    A review of these 177,588 defendants shows that they are responsible for at least 611,234 individual criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993 homicides and 7,695 sexual assaults.

    One such murder was committed by Juan Francisco De Luna Vasquez. Vasquez confessed to killing his wife with a hammer in Laredo.

    The increasing flood across the border combined with the existence of sanctuary cities bolstered by Obama administration policies allowing the release of the most violent criminal aliens has fueled these crimes.

    The House Judiciary Committee has passed the Davis-Oliver Act, introduced (S.1640) in the Senate by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and in the House (H.R.1148) by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), which would address many of these issues.

    Yesterday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) grilled Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldaña about the 104,000 criminals that ICE released in 2013, and the 68,000 criminals against whom ICE refused to start deportation proceedings.  Saldaña calls it "good news" that only 30,558 criminal aliens were released by ICE in 2014

    This webpage offers two bar graphs that are both very telling and educational in regards to the accompanying article.

    Zombieguy1987
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch