Will “mass deportation” actually happen (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

It’s so repulsive to see people cheering for what is basically 80% the same thing as the Holocaust - different end result but otherwise very similar.

Economists have said it would tank the economy and cause inflation - notwithstanding the cost.

Is it going to actually happen or is this Build The Wall 2.0?

 

[Dragon]

Great policy!

But illegal when there is not a health emergency

 

[Texan1211]

The first part is the question,

yes, as denoted by the ?.
For the rest:

Yes, the federal government transports migrants to other states

The federal government does transport migrants around the country for various purposes, including to unite unaccompanied children with their families or sponsors.

www.verifythis.com

 

[Dragon]

yes, as denoted by the ?.
For the rest:

Yes, the federal government transports migrants to other states

The federal government does transport migrants around the country for various purposes, including to unite unaccompanied children with their families or sponsors.

www.verifythis.com

Which was NOT a Biden policy but used under Trump as well

 

[superchuck500]

Do you mean you do this often?
There is nothing wrong with deporting people here illegally.

As often as we get a new member posting MAGA one-liners with absolutely zero substance and utter refusal to engage on the actual issue with anything meaningful.

 

[Texan1211]

What would be beneficial (for those who insist on more laws) would be one stating that every asylum seeker must register at a US consulate nearest their place of origin as possible, and to stay there or elsewhere before possible admittance to the US. Enter the country once illegally and be forever banned. Found to be here illegally through some other type of court action, deport them.

 

[Texan1211]

As often as we get a new member posting MAGA one-liners with absolutely zero substance and utter refusal to engage on the actual issue with anything meaningful.

That seems a fairly common response to anyone who doesn't toe the Democratic Party line. Yawn, sosdd

 

[TampaJoe]

Trump didn't stop people from migrating to the border in his first administration. Remain in Mexico didn't stop people from migrating to the border, it just kept them in Mexico. The only thing that stopped people migrating to the border temporarily was COVID.

It kept them in Mexico hence it kept them from migrating into this country. That is the purpose of immigration law. Controlling our borders and controlling whom we allow into this country.

Point well taken.

 

[Texan1211]

That is the purpose of immigration law. Controlling our borders and controlling whom we allow into this country.

Seems obvious to me.

 

[Dragon]

People entering on work visas already follow a structured process. However, the term 'refugee' inherently implies a different reality. Refugees cannot safely remain in their home countries to await visas—they flee due to war, famine, gangs, disasters, or other life-threatening dangers. Their lives are often at immediate risk, leaving no choice but to seek refuge elsewhere. In some cases, even visiting a U.S. consulate—if one exists in their region—could jeopardize their safety further.

 

[Texan1211]

People entering on work visas already follow a structured process. However, the term 'refugee' inherently implies a different reality. Refugees cannot safely remain in their home countries to await visas—they flee due to war, famine, gangs, disasters, or other life-threatening dangers. Their lives are often at immediate risk, leaving no choice but to seek refuge elsewhere. In some cases, even visiting a U.S. consulate—if one exists in their region—could jeopardize their safety further.

Many folks who have crossed our southern border pass through countries with consulates. I just bet there are some of them in Mexico!
The majority of asylum seekers are not granted it.

 

[superchuck500]

That seems a fairly common response to anyone who doesn't toe the Democratic Party line. Yawn, sosdd

What is common is you - we see this over and over from the MAGA types. You wade into these conversations with one-liners or puff comments and then refuse to provide meaningful support (explanations, data, etc.) for your posts. You ignore substantive replies inviting a more meaningful discussion. You're happy to engage in base argumentative pot-shotting but nothing beyond that.

And then when you get called out on it, you're the victim of the liberal mob. Grow up. These are some important issues, we welcome different viewpoints - we only ask that you back it up with substance. Why is that so challenging for you?

 

[TampaJoe]

People entering on work visas already follow a structured process. However, the term 'refugee' inherently implies a different reality. Refugees cannot safely remain in their home countries to await visas—they flee due to war, famine, gangs, disasters, or other life-threatening dangers. Their lives are often at immediate risk, leaving no choice but to seek refuge elsewhere. In some cases, even visiting a U.S. consulate—if one exists in their region—could jeopardize their safety further.

How many of the millions of people we have allowed into our country qualify as refugees? I have heard the percentages are relatively low and that most of these cases don’t qualify for asylum. They can apply for asylum in MX and wait for a hearing to see if they qualify for asylum in the US.

 

[Texan1211]

What is common is you - we see this over and over from the MAGA types. You wade into these conversations with one-liners or puff comments and then refuse to provide meaningful support (explanations, data, etc.) for your posts. You ignore substantive replies inviting a more meaningful discussion. You're happy to engage in base argumentative pot-shotting but nothing beyond that.

And then when you get called out on it, you're the victim of the liberal mob. Grow up. These are some important issues, we welcome different viewpoints - we only ask that you back it up with substance. Why is that so challenging for you?

I am not a MAGA, but do understand your need to be able to label me. You invent positions for me I have never espoused, and try to pass it off as fact.

 

[Texan1211]

How many of the millions of people we have allowed into our country qualify as refugees? I have heard the percentages are relatively low and that most of these cases don’t qualify for asylum. They can apply for asylum in MX and wait for a hearing to see if they qualify for asylum in the US.

Less than half of asylum requests are granted.

 

[MT15]

You could always just prove the claim, or is it too hard?
Calling me a troll because of your lack of facts and inability to prove your claim isn't my problem.

You could prove any of your claims - you know, as a show of good faith. But you won’t. Because you’re a low information troll. I stand by my assessment of your posting style.

 

[TampaJoe]

What is common is you - we see this over and over from the MAGA types. You wade into these conversations with one-liners or puff comments and then refuse to provide meaningful support (explanations, data, etc.) for your posts. You ignore substantive replies inviting a more meaningful discussion. You're happy to engage in base argumentative pot-shotting but nothing beyond that.

And then when you get called out on it, you're the victim of the liberal mob. Grow up. These are some important issues, we welcome different viewpoints - we only ask that you back it up with substance. Why is that so challenging for you?

One could suggest that terms such as “Trumpers” and “MAGA” and “MAGA types” is meaningless not substantive adding nothing to the conversation.

 

[superchuck500]

I am not a MAGA, but do understand your need to be able to label me. You invent positions for me I have never espoused, and try to pass it off as fact.

Yes, more of you being victimized.

Your positions are quite clear, there's no need for fabrication. I only ask that you defend them with some substance instead of this flow of one and two liners.

 

[superchuck500]

One could suggest that terms such as “Trumpers” and “MAGA” and “MAGA types” is meaningless not substantive adding nothing to the conversation.

It's aptly used in this context - and it's beside the point. We can do the whole thing about walking like a duck but when I say "MAGA types" I'm referring to those taking policy positions that roughly mirror the MAGA agenda. It doesn't mean that the person is a MAGA cultist - only that the ideas being proffered are consistent.

But I suppose that you're right that it's not fair to suggest that only MAGA types come here and are unwilling (or unable) to get into more substantive conversation - not only providing their opinions but backing them up with data or analysis. Certainly anyone can do that - but trends are trends.