Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

[ThatRobGuy]

Senate GOP blocks border bill.
Not sure what the reference is with Dem administrations blocking anything less something that was just unconstitutional. Which has been the case in Texas. And it should be noted the 5th district court of appeals (Texas) is one of the most conservative out there.
I don't think a law crafted in Texas shopped to the DC courts unless they proved standing in that courts jurisdiction.

It's actually pretty common for advocacy groups to challenge republican federal actions in the DC district. (and in several other cases, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California)


The reason why Senate GOP blocked the border bill was a matter of political strategy. Petty politics? Of course (but what isn't?)

They didn't want their party to get kneecapped on their main winning issue in the bottom of the 9th inning by an opposing party who would simply undo it the moment they won.


Example:

If, in Florida, polling showed DeSantis losing to a democratic opponent due to the issue of abortion. If DeSantis came out 2 months before the election and magically became pro-Choice out of nowhere, and tried to get a bill rushed through the statehouse to temporarily take that issue off the table so that his opponent couldn't use it against him, would you trust it to be a durable lasting measure?

Or would you call shenanigans and suspect that the moment he won, they'd immediately reverse course again and go back to being pro-life?

 

[BCP1928]

They AREN'T cogent arguments. They are appeals to emotions and feelings.

Well, let's look at them and see (keeping in mind that these are Rob's version of Democratic arguments, not the real thing.)


"Their country is extremely poor, we should be welcoming"
We can be, and a moderate flow of immigrants from all over the world is a good idea.

"The reason their country is in shambles and they feel need to move is because of US corporatist policies"
That's a fact, and you might add that "their country" is dangerous, too, mostly because of the criminal gangs which exist to supply is with the illegal drugs we demand.

"The policy of enforcing border restrictions is causing family separation"
It can, certainly, and that should be minimized

"People just don't want them coming here because they're racist and don't want brown people in their country"
There certainly is an element of racism to it, but for the most part the argument is inaccurate. That argument is directed at adherents to the "Great Replacement" conspiracy which seems to be culture based, rather than primarily race based.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, let's look at them and see (keeping in mind that these are Rob's version of Democratic arguments, not the real thing.)


"Their country is extremely poor, we should be welcoming"
We can be, and a moderate flow of immigrants from all over the world is a good idea.

What measures do you propose? And I'll let you know if those measures have been tried before and blocked by Democrats
(barring the "bipartisan border bill" which was a cheap attempt to undercut their opponents and pull the rug out from underneath republicans right before an election)

And why "moderate" the flow? Shouldn't we be looking to eliminate the flow of illegal immigrants?

"The reason their country is in shambles and they feel need to move is because of US corporatist policies"
That's a fact, and you might add that "their country" is dangerous, too, mostly because of the criminal gangs which exist to supply is with the illegal drugs we demand.

Where did the demand come from? Does someone wake up one morning having a hankering for an illicit drug despite never trying it before?

"The policy of enforcing border restrictions is causing family separation"
It can, certainly, and that should be minimized

So does locking up J6 insurrectionists... should we have avoided locking them up due to the fact that families would be separated by them being locked up in federal corrections facilities hundreds of miles away?


The "family separation" argument is the textbook definition of an "appeal to emotion" argument. The reality is, anytime a convicted person goes to jail for anything, it involves at least some level of family separation.

"People just don't want them coming here because they're racist and don't want brown people in their country"
There certainly is an element of racism to it, but for the most part the argument is inaccurate. That argument is directed at adherents to the "Great Replacement" conspiracy which seems to be culture based, rather than primarily race based.

In the case of Hispanic immigrants, that's not the case at all.

Hispanic voting patterns were almost a 50/50 split in 2024 (with a little over half of Hispanic women voting for Harris, and a little over half of Hispanic men voting for Trump), they're largely Catholic, and have positions that are fairly split on matters like LGBTQ issues and abortion. (some polls even indicate that they lean more toward the conservative position on those)

There's nothing to suggest that "cultural differences" is a main factor here.


What? is there some prevailing theory that conservatives have some sort of gripe with rice & beans served with a steak instead of a baked potato?

 

[rjs330]

Well, let's look at them and see (keeping in mind that these are Rob's version of Democratic arguments, not the real thing.)


"Their country is extremely poor, we should be welcoming"
We can be, and a moderate flow of immigrants from all over the world is a good idea.

"The reason their country is in shambles and they feel need to move is because of US corporatist policies"
That's a fact, and you might add that "their country" is dangerous, too, mostly because of the criminal gangs which exist to supply is with the illegal drugs we demand.

"The policy of enforcing border restrictions is causing family separation"
It can, certainly, and that should be minimized

"People just don't want them coming here because they're racist and don't want brown people in their country"
There certainly is an element of racism to it, but for the most part the argument is inaccurate. That argument is directed at adherents to the "Great Replacement" conspiracy which seems to be culture based, rather than primarily race based.

Those are all emotionally driven arguments. They are not cogent ones.

1. We feel sorry for them because they are in a poor country. We should help them. Emotion and empathy driven.

2. The USA is responsible is another emotionally driven argument. Its about blame and blame is emotionally driven. Especially when it is heaped upon one party. Its all my wife's fault that we got a divorce. The country wouldnt be in a mess if it wasnt for the USA. Its based upon feelings.

3. I feel bad when we separate an illegal family member. I dont care what the law says or what they did. It makes me feel bad. Therefore we shouldn't do it.

4. Being able to paint your opposition as racist is an important emotional strategy. It allows you to disregard anything they say. Becauae no one like a racist and we all know that racists have nothing valuable to say. It makes me feel better about rejecting any point they may make. Emotionally it makes me feel superior.

 

[rambot]

I think better question to ask is:
Do you like the outcomes.

I do not. If only 8% of those charged are ACTUAL violent criminals and over 60% have no criminal convictions, I do not like that outcome as most of these individuals were NOT part of the previous (election time) arrangement.

Nobody would be happy with the current data except for xenophobes.

 

[DaisyDay]

That's what thieves and those that support thievery say.

It is enshrined in the laws. If the law supports thievery, then thieves flourish.

If one can prove ownership, then if someone refuses to leave they are nothing g more than a thief and a felon.

Wait, you aren't one of those who require an actual conviction before labeling? In any case, not all, by a long shot, thefts arise to being felonious.

 

[ozso]

I think better question to ask is:
Do you like the outcomes.

I do not. If only 8% of those charged are ACTUAL violent criminals and over 60% have no criminal convictions, I do not like that outcome as most of these individuals were NOT part of the previous (election time) arrangement.

Nobody would be happy with the current data except for xenophobes.

How many Mexicans would want 10 million Americans to just cross the border en masse to live there? How many Canadians would want that?

What happens when you enter Mexico illegally?

What happens when you enter Canada illegally?

 

[rjs330]

I think better question to ask is:
Do you like the outcomes.

I do not. If only 8% of those charged are ACTUAL violent criminals and over 60% have no criminal convictions, I do not like that outcome as most of these individuals were NOT part of the previous (election time) arrangement.

Nobody would be happy with the current data except for xenophobes.

In June a raid in Massachusetts netted about 1500 illegals. Almost 800 of them had criminal convictions or charges.

The whole xenophobes deal is a trope intended to elicit an emotional response. Its a personal attack upon anyone who supports the deportation of illegals.

Perhaps they just want legal immigrants here. You are not a xenophobe if you simply want people to follow the law of the land.

And Trump was clear before the election he wasnt just going after violent criminals. I remember discussions about this where people were asking how he was going to deport 20 million people. So people mist certainly knew before hand.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws​

User Clip: Obama on Immigration 2006

The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States...

www.c-span.org

“All Americans…are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”​

​

Another thread focus on criticizing Democrats and how Democrats were wrong , or changed their position or they are all hypocrites rather than addressing real issues like immigration or border security and how to solve the problem.

Threads such as this contribute to increased political polarization in the United States. Such discussions lead to further division, as both politicians and citizens are less inclined to compromise or seek collective solutions, instead often finding themselves in opposition to each other.

 

[rjs330]

It is enshrined in the laws. If the law supports thievery, then thieves flourish.

Yes, and i believe the law is wrong. If the property is yours, and someone else takes it, it has ALWAYS been considered thievery. Until leftists decided that if a homeless person takes your property its okay. Its a leftist thing. Its virtuous to take things from one person and give them to someone else.

Wait, you aren't one of those who require an actual conviction before labeling? In any case, not all, by a long shot, thefts arise to being felonious.

If I break into your car and steal it i am committing a felony. And in the cases if squatters rights its we all KNOW how who it is. Whether the state decides to prosecute you is a different thing.

If you are raped and the state cant prove it does that mean you weren't raped?

Of course without a conviction the public is free to have an opinion on whether or not the crime actually occurred.

 

[rambot]

In June a raid in Massachusetts netted about 1500 illegals. Almost 800 of them had criminal convictions or charges.

The whole xenophobes deal is a trope intended to elicit an emotional response. Its a personal attack upon anyone who supports the deportation of illegals.

Perhaps they just want legal immigrants here. You are not a xenophobe if you simply want people to follow the law of the land.

And Trump was clear before the election he wasnt just going after violent criminals. I remember discussions about this where people were asking how he was going to deport 20 million people. So people mist certainly knew before hand.

1. How can you be a criminal if you've never been adjudication as one?

Is it because they're dirty brown people?

Or do you REALLY think that a missing signature on a form is grounds to remove someone who's been living here for years? Because these are the technicalities that are getting people removed now. Had two hearings that were thrown out but didn't report them? You need to leave...you are dirty and untrustworthy.

60%. No criminal conviction.

Spin it however you like. Give anecdotes that seem inspiring to you if you need to but the systemic data is problematic (I mean obviously it's problematic...you don't address it and try to counter with an anecdote).

You're still trying to kick them out for being criminals even when they aren't.

 

[ozso]

1. How can you be a criminal if you've never been adjudication as one?

Is it because they're dirty brown people?

Or do you REALLY think that a missing signature on a form is grounds to remove someone who's been living here for years? Because these are the technicalities that are getting people removed now. Had two hearings that were thrown out but didn't report them? You need to leave...you are dirty and untrustworthy.

60%. No criminal conviction.

Spin it however you like. Give anecdotes that seem inspiring to you if you need to but the systemic data is problematic (I mean obviously it's problematic...you don't address it and try to counter with an anecdote).

You're still trying to kick them out for being criminals even when they aren't.

If it was a dirty brown people xenophobe thing, there would be just as much focus on on the huge number of the immigrants from India and China. But there isn't. Because the majority of them immigrate here legally.

 

[mark46]

The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws​

User Clip: Obama on Immigration 2006

The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States...

www.c-span.org

“All Americans…are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”​

​

1) And the deporter-in-chief, Obama continued this policy.

2) The jobs would NOT be held by citizens, but we aren't really discussing those already here and working at jobs no one else wants.

3) The title of this thread is BORDER ENFORCEMENT. I strong favor border enforcement. Biden didn't.

4) As an aside, I do favor deporting those who have existing deportation orders, those who are illegal and have been convicted of a violent crime, and those who came in under Biden. Also, I favor much faster processing of those with court dates.

5) I do NOT favor harassing and deporting key workers who have been here for years and who are critical to our economy. As do most Americans, I favor that Dreamers and other illegal workers be granted a pathway to citizenship. The US NEEDS these workers (plus high-tech workers). The alternative is to become an aging work force with fewer and fewer workers supporting those not working. And, of course, immigrants (legal and illegal) are much less likely to commit crimes than citizens.

 

[wing2000]

Trump's backtracking on illegals in certain industries. He is making provisions for farm migrant laborers and illegals employed hotels and food processing. Trump’s New Amnesty Would Cover About Two Million Illegal Immigrants | National Review
Trump talking about more permanent amnesty as he did in his past. May I point out that the USA can't have high wage inflation, because the public debt depends on low rates well into the future, and with tariffs costs looming in the hundreds of billions adding labor to that pressure will only make things worse.

All talk at this point. Maybe in 6 months when jobs go unfilled, the GOP will reverse course.

 

[rambot]

If it was a dirty brown people xenophobe thing, there would be just as much focus on on the huge number of the immigrants from India and China. But there isn't. Because the majority of them immigrate here legally.

That's nice. You should hear the stories of east Asians have their phd student visas revoked and being defacto kicked out who are otherwise perfect law abiding residents.

The rules have changed. They are being hunted and sought after for ANY reason.

 

[ozso]

That's nice. You should hear the stories of east Asians have their phd student visas revoked and being defacto kicked out who are otherwise perfect law abiding residents.

The rules have changed. They are being hunted and sought after for ANY reason.

What stories? Where?

 

[essentialsaltes]

What stories? Where?

What is behind this sudden move against international students?

• Five from Amherst 4/5/2025
• Five from Ohio State 4/4/2025
• Six from UC San Diego 4/42025
• Twelve from UC Davis 4/42025
• Six from UC Standford + Four from UC Berkley 4/5/2025
• Eight from Arizona State 4/3/2025
• One from Georgetown University 3/17/2025
• Two from University of Texas Austin 4/4/2025
• Two from University of Akron, Ohio 4/42025
• Four from Kent State University Ohio 4/4/2025
• Two from University of Kentucky 4/4/2025
• Four from University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4/4/2025

The common themes in these revocations are the abruptness, lack of warning and lack of reasons given.

 

[ozso]

That's 57 out of 1,100,000 international students or 0.00518181818%.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes, and i believe the law is wrong.

As do I.

If the property is yours, and someone else takes it, it has ALWAYS been considered thievery.

Apparently NOT ALWAYS - see "adverse possession". Also see "civil asset forfeiture".

Until leftists decided that if a homeless person takes your property its okay. Its a leftist thing. Its virtuous to take things from one person and give them to someone else.

Which leftists decided that? Are adverse possession and civil asset forfeiture really leftist things?

If I break into your car and steal it i am committing a felony.

But you are not "a felon" by most definitions until you've been convicted (and some claim not until you've been sentenced).

And in the cases if squatters rights its we all KNOW how who it is. Whether the state decides to prosecute you is a different thing.

Evidently not as I don't KNOW how who (what?) is. Why would the state prosecute me, a non-squatter? From what I've read, the state generally does not prosecute squatters as that is considered a civil matter. Generally, property owners have to obtain a court order and pay a marshal to get squatters removed. I've never heard of the state prosecuting squatters, but feel free to post evidence that this happens.

If you are raped and the state cant prove it does that mean you weren't raped?

What is it with you guys loving to speculate about me getting raped? I find it an extremely distasteful appeal to emotion...also a bit menacing.

In any case, that isn't the argument I have made, yet that is what you're arguing against. Why?

Of course without a conviction the public is free to have an opinion on whether or not the crime actually occurred.

Yes! That is what I, among others here, have argued about Trump's well-documented crimes - with a lot of pushback from some lovelies here.

 

[DaisyDay]

That's 57 out of 1,100,000 or 0.00518181818%.

Those figures are from months ago. You asked for stories; stories were presented to you.

Where does your figure of 1,100,000 come from?