It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New immigration scandal: Foreign nations refusing to take back criminal illegals

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Instead of forcing nations to take back 19,723 illegal immigrants convicted of many crimes including rape and murder, the administration simply let them go, just a quarter of the tens of thousands of criminal illegals set free in the past three years, a House oversight committee revealed Thursday.

Outraged with the administration's actions, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told top Obama aides at a hearing, "Pull the trigger...get rid of them."

He described the steady release of convicted illegal immigrants a national scandal that the White House knows about but ignores.


www.washingtonexaminer.com...



The Obama administration has released almost 20 thousand criminal illegal aliens in the past year alone. The criminals' native countries are refusing to take their citizens back, so this administration just sets them loose on American streets.

Rep. Chaffetz says we have leverage, like 52 Liberians that we want to deport, but Liberia refuses to accept them. Chaffetz says we should withhold the $125 million in foregin welfare aid we give them annually until they accept their citizens. I agree with using our leverage.

The Obama administration will not use that power. Instead they want to play nice, in turn making us look pathetic and causing our streets to be less safe.

I for one resent the fact that any of my tax money or that of my fellow citizens go to countries who thumb their noses at us. Liberia is just one more of many countries I would like to see removed from our International welfare expense.

If these countries won't take their citizens back, my suggestion is sending the criminals over to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, so he can expand his camp. They stay there until their country takes them back. This should be paid for by withholding the foreign aid check, instead using it to pay for more pink panties and bologna sandwiches. I'm sure the country in question would take their citizens back in no time.




posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
All part of the ongoing agenda to diminish American society.




posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
You force the nations to take them back at gunpoint if needed. Or smuggle them back in or drop them with a parachute back into mexico or where they come from. They won t waste time an d money sending them back. they will shoot them themselves.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: harvestdog

Cloward and Piven!

For those in the US mocking our European friends for what is being allowed to happen in their countries, it's happening here as well!



Make America Mexico Again!





edit on 14-7-2016 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
You force the nations to take them back at gunpoint if needed. Or smuggle them back in or drop them with a parachute back into mexico or where they come from. They won t waste time an d money sending them back. they will shoot them themselves.


How? How do you force a sovereign nation to let someone into their borders when neither the nation or the person wants to be there?

Do you realize how quick the world would unite against us if we said "take these people or we're bombing you"? What about when the accusations start that we're mixing our own foreign agents in with these people we're forcing them to take?



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
You force the nations to take them back at gunpoint if needed. Or smuggle them back in or drop them with a parachute back into mexico or where they come from. They won t waste time an d money sending them back. they will shoot them themselves.


How? How do you force a sovereign nation to let someone into their borders when neither the nation or the person wants to be there?

Do you realize how quick the world would unite against us if we said "take these people or we're bombing you"? What about when the accusations start that we're mixing our own foreign agents in with these people we're forcing them to take?


Wel i did mention ALTERNATIVES but you left those out. And You can threaten sanctions but walking them to th e border of their home country then telling them to walk back over the border. Under gunpoint if they will not willingly go. I dont mean actually war with a country but force them back home and if they try to com back shoot them if they come back.

Personally its better to parachute them back in and not even deal with the border patrols.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I have to agree, if they are violent or serious criminals, if you can't deport them initially you have to tighten the screws and remind them who has the big stick



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Wel i did mention ALTERNATIVES but you left those out. And You can threaten sanctions but walking them to th e border of their home country then telling them to walk back over the border. Under gunpoint if they will not willingly go. I dont mean actually war with a country but force them back home and if they try to com back shoot them if they come back.

Personally its better to parachute them back in and not even deal with the border patrols.


So force them into another country illegally? What do you do when that nation puts troops on the border with orders to not let them in?
edit on 14-7-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Load them up into a Hercules, fly over Liberia, and kick them out. Parachutes optional.
As for the other 19,000, same thing.

Or at the very least do like Chaffetz says, grow some balls and tell them no more money till you take these people back.

Personally I think the US, Canada, and the UK need to get their own sh#t in order before we do any more cultural enrichment.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: harvestdog

The United States really just has to make e-everify the law of the land AND stop all money transfers (western union,etc) to mexico.

I will have to check-but if I recall correctly-most of mexico's wealth comes from illegal aliens sending cash back to mexico after illegally earning it here in the United States.

Do that and I'm betting that you will see them scrambling back under the fence in droves.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I HAVE A SOLUTION....one way or another anyway...

What caliber is YOURS?
edit on 14-7-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I agree 100% but ats doesn't like it when I say it,lol.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Picklesneeze
a reply to: harvestdog

The United States really just has to make e-everify the law of the land AND stop all money transfers (western union,etc) to mexico.

I will have to check-but if I recall correctly-most of mexico's wealth comes from illegal aliens sending cash back to mexico after illegally earning it here in the United States.

Do that and I'm betting that you will see them scrambling back under the fence in droves.


That's why I think walls are stupid spend thr money making sure companies don't hire illegals and they will leave on there own. Employers are already supposed to make sure they can be legally imployed. Problem is they get fined if they are caught and the money they save hiring them far outweighs the fine.

Change it to a criminal offense and if people start getting jail time they will quickly decide it's not worth the risk. I'd also include a fine sk you can give it to people that inform on them these two changes there would be almost zero illegals. It works in many countries in the world



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Put the check for the money and the criminals on the same plane, tell them they can take all or none.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Picklesneeze
I will have to check-but if I recall correctly-most of mexico's wealth comes from illegal aliens sending cash back to mexico after illegally earning it here in the United States.


That makes up nowhere near the majority of their GDP. Also, illegal Mexican immigration is down over the past decade. There are fewer illegals here now than there were in 2006, and they're leaving by the day. The largest segment of illegals in the US currently are Asians who come over here legally to attend school and work, then stay when their visa expires.
edit on 15-7-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

It'd be very hard to give out jail time for the crime, unless it was a small company. The large company would just sellout some low level guy every time and the hire up ones would wrap up the courts in red tape and legal battles leaving us in the same place we are now.

Now this not me saying we should punish them, just that jail time would be hard to dish out. As it stands now the fine for hiring an illegal is very small. How small you ask well according to the DOJ the highest fine is $539.00. But this is the old fine as of 2016 back around June the fine was raised to $4,313.00 with a Maximum of $21,563.00. Yes that is right it caps out so to a large chain company this is still very small. There is the real trick how do we punish the large ones?

Well one way would be to remove the fine cap and set it as a set fine, say $10,000.00 per person hired as a start. Also remove that companies ability to write it off on it's taxes by not letting them do any taxes write offs for the next two years at all and a mandatory audit as well for both years. Cause we know they would try and write it off on taxes putting the bill on taxpayers. Sure they might try and write it off the third year but I bet it would make the think twice about doing it again.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
Wel i did mention ALTERNATIVES but you left those out. And You can threaten sanctions but walking them to th e border of their home country then telling them to walk back over the border. Under gunpoint if they will not willingly go. I dont mean actually war with a country but force them back home and if they try to com back shoot them if they come back.

Personally its better to parachute them back in and not even deal with the border patrols.


So force them into another country illegally? What do you do when that nation puts troops on the border with orders to not let them in?


I said THEIR LEGAL COUNTRY THEY BELONG TO.(caps for emphasis) If they are of a country under international law they are to take them back if they are deported.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
I said THEIR LEGAL COUNTRY THEY BELONG TO.(caps for emphasis) If they are of a country under international law they are to take them back if they are deported.


No they aren't. There are several countries that don't take back criminal nationals. Pakistan, Algeria, and Tunisia are three.

Mexico is completely within their legal rights to at any time tell the US they refuse to take back their own citizens, and the US then has no way to send them there.

This is possible because international law is extremely weak. There's no enforcement agency over it, and if a nation doesn't want to adhere to international law anymore (potentially a law they didn't even agree with), nothing says they have to. The Supreme Court even ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis that we cannot hold criminals indefinitely. If we can't deport them to their home country because that country isn't willing, we have to let them stay here.
edit on 15-7-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
I said THEIR LEGAL COUNTRY THEY BELONG TO.(caps for emphasis) If they are of a country under international law they are to take them back if they are deported.


No they aren't. There are several countries that don't take back criminal nationals. Pakistan, Algeria, and Tunisia are three.

Mexico is completely within their legal rights to at any time tell the US they refuse to take back their own citizens, and the US then has no way to send them there.

This is possible because international law is extremely weak. There's no enforcement agency over it, and if a nation doesn't want to adhere to international law anymore (potentially a law they didn't even agree with), nothing says they have to. The Supreme Court even ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis that we cannot hold criminals indefinitely. If we can't deport them to their home country because that country isn't willing, we have to let them stay here.


If they refuse to take their people back just shoot them because we dont want them either. If no one wants them its better to eliminate them.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
If they refuse to take their people back just shoot them because we dont want them either. If no one wants them its better to eliminate them.


So you advocate the death penalty for illegal immigration? What happens when they cross over through New Mexico which has no death penalty? What about when they live in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Colorado, or Oregon which don't have a death penalty? There's no way for the state in question to then shoot them.

Federal law only allows the death penalty for specific types of crime. Do you advocate expanding the federal governments power in order to add illegal immigration to the list of capital crimes? The average federal death penalty case currently takes 16 years to carry out. Do you want to start building jails to house illegal immigrants for 16 years before we execute them? Those 16 years cost way more than any drain on societies resources they create by living here.

What do we do if we round them all up, jail them for a decade, and then the political winds change and we give amnesty? Do you think that would be a good situation? It would be chaos on the streets.

Widespread executions are not the answer you're looking for.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join