Will “mass deportation” actually happen (2 Viewers)

[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?

 

[MT15]

Gee, most wives do that. What did she say in support of mass deportations?
I have heard Musk criticize sanctuary policies.

Musk has done a lot more than that. From the article I linked that you haven’t looked at:

‘Musk in recent months has amplified the Republican presidential candidate’s claims that “open borders” and undocumented immigrants are destroying America, broadcasting those views to more than 200 million followers on the site formerly known as Twitter, which Musk bought in 2022 and later renamed X.

What Musk has not publicly disclosed is that he did not have the legal right to work while building the company that became Zip2, which sold for about $300 million in 1999. It was Musk’s steppingstone to Tesla and the other ventures that have made him the world’s wealthiest person — and arguably America’s most successful immigrant.’

I said it was Trump’s hypocrisy - being for mass deportations while having had an affair with an illegal alien and then greasing the wheels to get her status taken care of.

And honestly, I don’t care that he helped Melania clear her illegal status - it’s the hypocrisy of being okay with her immigration issues but wanting to punish all people who are not from European countries with the same issues. It’s hard to not conclude there are racial reasons for his stances.

 

[Texan1211]

Musk has done a lot more than that. From the article I linked that you haven’t looked at:

‘Musk in recent months has amplified the Republican presidential candidate’s claims that “open borders” and undocumented immigrants are destroying America, broadcasting those views to more than 200 million followers on the site formerly known as Twitter, which Musk bought in 2022 and later renamed X.

What Musk has not publicly disclosed is that he did not have the legal right to work while building the company that became Zip2, which sold for about $300 million in 1999. It was Musk’s steppingstone to Tesla and the other ventures that have made him the world’s wealthiest person — and arguably America’s most successful immigrant.’

I said it was Trump’s hypocrisy - being for mass deportations while having had an affair with an illegal alien and then greasing the wheels to get her status taken care of.

And honestly, I don’t care that he helped Melania clear her illegal status - it’s the hypocrisy of being okay with her immigration issues but wanting to punish all people who are not from European countries with the same issues. It’s hard to not conclude there are racial reasons for his stances.

Beating a dead horse won't bring him back to life. Both have been granted citizenship, all discussions about their status before then is rather moot now.

 

[DaveXA]

But now they aren't.

The LAW says they are US citizens.

I didn't pick anything, Whatever gave you that impression? And if you are naive or ignorant enough to believe that SCOTUS ruled no laws apply to a President, please go read something about it.

SCOTUS ruled that a President is essentially and effectively immune from prosecution for any and all crimes that occurred while President. It's pretty easy to look up. I've actually read the opinion of the court. Have you?

 

[Texan1211]

SCOTUS ruled that a President is essentially and effectively immune from prosecution for any and all crimes that occurred while President. It's pretty easy to look up. I've actually read the opinion of the court. Have you?

It is hard to believe that anyone could honestly believe that SCOTUS said no laws apply to the President.

Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution - SCOTUSblog

This article was updated on July 1 at 3:32 p.m. In a historic decision, a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their offici

www.scotusblog.com

 

[DaveXA]

It is hard to believe that anyone could honestly believe that SCOTUS said no laws apply to the President.

Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution - SCOTUSblog

This article was updated on July 1 at 3:32 p.m. In a historic decision, a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their offici

www.scotusblog.com

That's not what I said though.

 

[TampaJoe]

Because Mexico is a sovereign country and we need their cooperation?

Because a lot of the people aren’t Mexican, so why would Mexico take them? Seems kinda hypocritical to expect Mexico to take people we don’t want who aren’t from Mexico, doesn’t it?

Are you suggesting marching people down to the border at gunpoint and forcing them to illegally enter Mexico? Seems extremely hypocritical. I was taught two wrongs don’t make a right.

Of course it helps to think of them as real people, the vast majority of which we would be lucky to keep and provide a path to citizenship. We have a labor shortage - we need workers.

I’m suggesting that if they crossed into this country from Mexico then perhaps they should be Mexico’s problem. Perhaps Mexico should do more to police its borders?

 

[Texan1211]

That's not what I said though.

here are your words:

SCOTUS ruled that a President is essentially and effectively immune from prosecution for any and all crimes that occurred while President. It's pretty easy to look up. I've actually read the opinion of the court. Have you?

SCOTUS didn't rule that at all. You have been misinformed.

 

[DaveXA]

here are your words:

SCOTUS ruled that a President is essentially and effectively immune from prosecution for any and all crimes that occurred while President. It's pretty easy to look up. I've actually read the opinion of the court. Have you?

SCOTUS didn't rule that at all. You have been misinformed.

Tell me what's different between what I said and this:

"ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their official acts more broadly."

 

[MT15]

I’m suggesting that if they crossed into this country from Mexico then perhaps they should be Mexico’s problem. Perhaps Mexico should do more to police its borders?

We can ask - but they’re a sovereign country. In fact we have been asking for years and years. I don’t know what magic wand you think we can use to force them to do what we want, especially when Trump is talking about sending millions of people their way in a year or less. And also when Trump is threatening to send US troops across Mexico’s border uninvited - otherwise known as invading a foreign country.

This whole thing just makes zero sense economically - we need workers, pretty desperately. These people are willing to work. The vast majority are law-abiding and want to contribute to society. It will cost US taxpayers billions to send them back. They will have to be housed, fed and adjudicated through the court system. We will be breaking up nuclear families, because a lot of these people have US citizen children. Almost all of these people are only guilty of entering the US illegally which I think is a misdemeanor.

Can you justify this scenario to me in any way? From an economic, moral, or even a Christian perspective?

 

[TampaJoe]

We can ask - but they’re a sovereign country. In fact we have been asking for years and years. I don’t know what magic wand you think we can use to force them to do what we want, especially when Trump is talking about sending millions of people their way in a year or less. And also when Trump is threatening to send US troops across Mexico’s border uninvited - otherwise known as invading a foreign country.

This whole thing just makes zero sense economically - we need workers, pretty desperately. These people are willing to work. The vast majority are law-abiding and want to contribute to society. It will cost US taxpayers billions to send them back. They will have to be housed, fed and adjudicated through the court system. We will be breaking up nuclear families, because a lot of these people have US citizen children. Almost all of these people are only guilty of entering the US illegally which I think is a misdemeanor.

Can you justify this scenario to me in any way? From an economic, moral, or even a Christian perspective?

As has been noted several times, we have programs that allow for needed migrant workers. I have no issue with making allowances for people who come here to work and are needed. However, we are a nation of laws and violation of those laws come with consequences. If you come here illegally, then one of the consequences of that violation would be deportation. Otherwise, what is the purpose of immigration laws?

I understand there is a cost to enforcing the law. There generally is. As I pointed out earlier, this was all known to the Biden administration prior to their taking office. They ignored the consequences.

That said, we are where we are. We need to secure and control our borders. Then we need to deal with all these undocumented migrants fairly and humanely. If they do not qualify for asylum, they must either leave this country or get a job and pay their way. If they came here to work, then let’s allow them to work. Legally. And pay taxes. I am not interested in a pathway to citizenship. That is a different matter.

As far as fairness is concerned. How do you justify the current cluster of a policy to folks who waited patiently for years to come to this country legally?

As I said earlier. My opinion is that the Biden administration knew all along how difficult and costly it would be to allow all these undocumented migrants into this country. And they did it anyway. Perhaps it is they who have some explaining to do.

 

[Sendai]

“SCOTUS ruled that a President is essentially and effectively immune from prosecution for any and all crimes that occurred while President”

“ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office”

I’d interpret

“Any and all…while resident” is distinctly different from “relating to the core powers of their office”

 

[Dragon]

As has been noted several times, we have programs that allow for needed migrant workers. I have no issue with making allowances for people who come here to work and are needed. However, we are a nation of laws and violation of those laws come with consequences. If you come here illegally, then one of the consequences of that violation would be deportation. Otherwise, what is the purpose of immigration laws?

I understand there is a cost to enforcing the law. There generally is. As I pointed out earlier, this was all known to the Biden administration prior to their taking office. They ignored the consequences.

That said, we are where we are. We need to secure and control our borders. Then we need to deal with all these undocumented migrants fairly and humanely. If they do not qualify for asylum, they must either leave this country or get a job and pay their way. If they came here to work, then let’s allow them to work. Legally. And pay taxes. I am not interested in a pathway to citizenship. That is a different matter.

As far as fairness is concerned. How do you justify the current cluster of a policy to folks who waited patiently for years to come to this country legally?

As I said earlier. My opinion is that the Biden administration knew all along how difficult and costly it would be to allow all these undocumented migrants into this country. And they did it anyway. Perhaps it is they who have some explaining to do.

Which of the last 4 presidents have owned companies convicted of employing illegal immigrants ?

And why are you against a path to citizentship for people who has been living and working in the US for more than 5 years, paying taxes and contributing to society?

 

[Dragon]

A Fun Immigration Fact:
Last year, four times as many U.S. citizens immigrated to Denmark compared to Danish citizens moving to the U.S., and this trend has remained consistent over the past 10 years. Interestingly, U.S. citizens have been the 5th largest new immigrant group in Denmark over the last three years, highlighting the growing appeal of Denmark for Americans seeking opportunities abroad.

 

[TampaJoe]

Which of the last 4 presidents have owned companies convicted of employing illegal immigrants ?

And why are you against a path to citizentship for people who has been living and working in the US for more than 5 years, paying taxes and contributing to society?

If they came over legally, I have no issue with it. If they came over illegally, I don’t see awarding illegal behavior with citizenship. But as has been stated, these folks didn’t come here to vote, they came to work. So let them work and pay taxes. Citizenship is a different matter from immigration. IMV

 

[Dragon]

If they came over legally, I have no issue with it. If they came over illegally, I don’t see awarding illegal behavior with citizenship. But as has been stated, these folks didn’t come here to vote, they came to work. So let them work and pay taxes. Citizenship is a different matter from immigration. IMV

But Musk came here illegally and got citizentship. Why should they be treated differently ?

And you did not answer my question

 

[Texan1211]

Tell me what's different between what I said and this:

"ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office, and that there is at least a presumption that they have immunity for their official acts more broadly."

Oh, man, please don't tell me you think every act made by a President is an official act,.

 

[TampaJoe]

But Musk came here illegally and got citizentship. Why should they be treated differently ?

And you did not answer my question

I am not familiar with how Elon got citizenship. As a general rule, I would not favor putting a pathway to citizenship in a bill dealing will illegal migration.

What question did I not answer?

 

[Dragon]

I am not familiar with how Elon got citizenship. As a general rule, I would not favor putting a pathway to citizenship in a bill dealing will illegal migration.

What question did I not answer?

Which of the last 4 presidents have owned companies convicted of employing illegal immigrants ?

But as has been stated, these folks didn’t come here to vote, they came to work. So let them work and pay taxes. Citizenship is a different matter from immigration. IMV

And we were talking about immigrant who has legal work visa - not illegals. So why should they not have a legal road to citizent ship?