Why do you support #MexicanPrivilege ?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's more of a push for an EU-type of structure here in the Americas.

You already have that. 50 republics, some states are larger than many EU countries. Not hard to see that the US is the inspiration.

As for the OP: I'd like to know, why Puerto Ricans are born US citizens? OK, I already know but that just seems like a much bigger privilege than what mexicans have but nobody makes a big deal out of that one.

The answer of course is NAFTA and the Merida Initiative. Two baby steps closer to the NAU.

originally posted by: TheBulk
These people illegally invade and then refuse to assimilate. They go as far as to complain about American flags because they're offended by it!

Are you sure you're not buying into media hype?? In my life I've met a lot of illegals from Mexico and never once have I heard any of them act in the way you describe. In fact, all of them were working on becoming legal citizens. The thing slowing them down is the process of becoming legal. I'm not here to say that the process needs to change, or that it's too hard or anything like that. I'm just saying that I've never once heard any of them act in the way you described. Hell, they were all happy to be here because it's given them opportunities they didn't have down south.

So once again I ask, are you sure you're not buying into media hype?? Maybe a few did it, yet you believe they're all like that??

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheBulk

Again, this sounds like you don't want ANY Hispanics coming here - legally or otherwise.

No, I'm fine with people of all colors and heritage coming legally. And of those people I want the best. I do not want people who destroyed their own country then abandoned it.

Explain to me why you're cool with that.

a reply to: SaturnFX

We had that war already. If we're not successful we could lose Texas back to them instead of the other way around.

a reply to: TheBulk

What makes you so sure that the ones who came here legally didn't have anything to do with how their country is? And what makes you so sure that the ones who came here illegally had anything to do with how their country is?

a reply to: thinline

And no one said building a wall is racist. Trump is racist. No doubts there what so ever. But building no.

originally posted by: thinline
America has laws. Immigration laws are on the books. I want the immigration laws to be enforced for everyone. There is a portion of the population that doesn't, why do you support criminal acts? The main focus of people who support the criminals are saying that building a wall to help enforce American immigration law is racist?

My questions is, why are give special treatment to Mexicans? Why are you for #MexicanPrivilege? Shouldn't you judge people on the content of their character? The people who make a conscious decision to break American laws? Over the color of their skin?

Why should the Mexican criminals get better treatment then people who are trying to do the right thing, and are following the laws?

Basically, if you don't want the laws to be followed equally and you want to give special privilege to one set group, isn't that against all you believe in?

Stop #MexicanPrivlidge

A wall isn't racist. It is useless, financially unworkable and will be an eminent domain nightmare for land owners. It would also be ugly and endanger wildlife. After that one, why not build one on the Canadian border and then one around the tiny spot in Alaska where Palin can see Russia from her house?

It is too late. You can't pick up 11 million people and move them. Many illegal immigrants have hade children here, who are natural born citizens. I would not separate families. How, also, could we send their children, US citizens, to a foreign country?
I am all for strengthening border security, but we can't pick up and move the people that are already here.

I see....this is because trump said 'No amnesty'. LOL. He won't be elected and even if he were, good luck to him with the no amsesty thing.


This is is not twitter, we don't need hashtags.

originally posted by: Grambler
Fair question but the issue is more nuanced than that. I personally think both the pot laws and immigration laws need updated, but lets work with your example.

The short answer to your question is yes. If the person is caught smoking pot, they should be arrested if that is the law. I disagree with that law, but that doesn't give me the right to break it. Now should police go out of their way to hunt down pot smokers, no. Nor should they hunt down non violent criminal illegals. But if they are caught, they should be held to the law.

This is how things are done currently. You are aware that Obama has deported more illegals than any other previous President, yes? Obviously, in order to deport said illegals, they must be caught.

But there are differences in these scenarios. I feel that a person should be allowed to take any substance as long as it doesn't affect other people. Illegals are affecting other people though, taking jobs and resources. Even if they do contribute, that doesn't excuse the fact that they are in effect stealing these resources that were designed for citizens of the US. If a pot head steals from you, they should absolutely be arrested.

This is a rather abstract way of looking at stealing and it requires significant statistical evidence to back it up. For one, this is also a far more nuanced point than you are letting on. Many jobs that illegals work are specifically designed FOR illegals. They are low pay, long hours, physical labor intensive jobs. If there were no illegals then find help to fill these jobs becomes exceedingly difficult.

This was actually proven in Alabama when they severely tightened their illegal laws and ran all the illegals out of their state. Farmers couldn't get workers to tend their crops and had to appeal to state so the state sent inmates to do it. Then the farmers complained about them because the inmates weren't doing a good job (surprise! forced labor doing half assed jobs). So eventually Alabama quietly rolled back those laws and let illegals back into the state.
How America’s harshest immigration law failed

That was a live test of how Trump's policies would play out in reality.

The further problem can be seen by posters on this thread. They think that anyone that is in distress should be allowed to come here, or even in extreme people that we should not restrict anyone. This would be anarchy.

The US' vetting process for refugees is extremely intensive, and I'm sure that any illegals given amnesty would be put through a similar if not same vetting process.

Using your example, it would be like saying anyone of any age should be allowed to smoke pot whenever they want. Operating a vehicle, smoke pot, teaching school children, smoke pot, performing surgery, smoke pot.

Oh, in addition, if you don't agree that everyone should be able to smoke whenever they want, you are a racist. This is the problem with the progressive argument. Anyone who has any concerns about illegal immigration and discusses it it immediately called a racist, and shut down. This is why the problem has got to the point that it is.

You know, I was under the impression that you wanted to engage me civilly but if you are going to interject your right wing persecution complex onto me, then I'm just going to lose respect for you. I didn't call you a racist, so talking about what OTHER progressives do is just insulting to me because it comes off like you are lumping me in with them. If there ARE progressives doing this then you need to grow some thicker skin anyways, but I doubt that in any given day that you are called a racist barely ever if at all.

Most people get called racist when they make racist and unfounded statements about a racial demographic, and you may not want to admit it and this may not apply to you but there are QUITE a few racists who support your ideology.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
a reply to: kaylaluv

If people who come here from Mexico are working hard and are not stealing from or killing or raping or otherwise hurting anyone, they should be allowed to stay.

That is the thing you are not understanding. Without a legal process, the criminals also make it in. To only bring in law abiding Mexicans means they have to go through the hoops to see WHO they are.

The funny thing about criminals is that they tend to break other laws besides immigration laws. When they do, they tend to get caught.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheBulk

Again, this sounds like you don't want ANY Hispanics coming here - legally or otherwise.

I do not want people who destroyed their own country then abandoned it.

This literally defines EVERY immigration wave we've ever received. Irish. Russians. Poles. Germans. Italians. Catholics. All of them. Today it is Mexicans and Muslims. People who like the country they live in tend to not mass migrate away from it...

The immigration rhetoric coming from you and the Alt-Right are all rehashed arguments dating back to the early 1800's and early 1900's that have all proven false for every other demographic they were said about. Anyone who believes they will be true now is being willingly gullible.

Have you ever watched Gangs of New York? Same #. Different day.

Delete.

Our immigration laws are crap.
Our drug laws are crap.
Our trade laws are crap.

The laws need to change.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

That link doesn't disprove that non-citizens having children in this country makes those children citizens though. In fact it is pretty much a non-sequitur since it is irrelevant to illegals gaining citizenship.

U.S. Citizenship Through Parents or by Birth

In most situations, any child that is born in the United States or one of its territories will automatically receive American citizenship. However, children born to diplomats and other recognized government officials from foreign countries will not receive U.S. citizenship if born on American soil. You can learn more about this by looking through Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

If you were born in the U.S., your U.S. citizenship will last your entire life unless you make an affirmative action to give it up, like filing an oath.

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

a reply to: thinline

The main focus of people who support the criminals are saying that building a wall to help enforce American immigration law is racist?

Honestly, I haven't heard people make that claim. You might be projecting a bit.


As far as building a wall it is an utterly f#ing stupid idea that would do nothing to curb immigration, but it would be a huge waste of tax money and an embarrassment for this nation. An 80 billion dollar 20ft wall easily defeated by a 21ft ladder.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: thinline

The main focus of people who support the criminals are saying that building a wall to help enforce American immigration law is racist?

Honestly, I haven't heard people make that claim. You might be projecting a bit.


As far as building a wall it is an utterly f#ing stupid idea that would do nothing to curb immigration, but it would be a huge waste of tax money and an embarrassment for this nation. An 80 billion dollar 20ft wall easily defeated by a 21ft ladder.

Or a shovel. Or just driving across through one of our many border crossing points.

a reply to: thinline

It's not quite Mexican privilege, given that many who cross the southern border illegally are from all over central and south america, and that many legal Mexican immigrants are still stuck waiting in line without privilege. But it is definitely a soft bigotry of low expectations insofar as illegals are held to a much lower standard than legal citizens.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

This is how things are done currently. You are aware that Obama has deported more illegals than any other previous President, yes? Obviously, in order to deport said illegals, they must be caught.

First, Obama has passed to executive actions that allow illegals to stay. Secondly, he has repeatedly refused to enforce laws he doesn't believe in. The deportation numbers seem high because Obama changed how we measure them. We now consider deportations sending people back we catch at the border, and that was never the case before. We have sanctuary cities where law enforcement are told not to contact ICE.

Regardless, this doesn't affect my argument. I merely said, if they are caught, they should be held accountable, just as a pot smoker should be held accountable if they are caught.

Do you think that illegals that are caught should be held accountable for breaking the law?

I will answer the next part of your post in a new post.

The US' vetting process for refugees is extremely intensive, and I'm sure that any illegals given amnesty would be put through a similar if not same vetting process.

First even the people that do the vetting process in the obama administration have said it is impossible to know much about the people in places like Syria coming here.

And again, this doesn't really respond to my point. Many people think we should allow any person struggling to come here (Like kayla on this thread) and still others believe in no borders. I am not saying you believe this, but that many do. This would be anarchy. We have to have reasonable border control.

You know, I was under the impression that you wanted to engage me civilly but if you are going to interject your right wing persecution complex onto me, then I'm just going to lose respect for you. I didn't call you a racist, so talking about what OTHER progressives do is just insulting to me because it comes off like you are lumping me in with them. If there ARE progressives doing this then you need to grow some thicker skin anyways, but I doubt that in any given day that you are called a racist barely ever if at all.

Most people get called racist when they make racist and unfounded statements about a racial demographic, and you may not want to admit it and this may not apply to you but there are QUITE a few racists who support your ideology.

Whoa, slow down! I didn't say you did this, and if you got that impression, I am sorry. I even mentioned on my thread that other people say things such as full open borders, which I definitely was not talking about you. I am talking about the progressives that say that wanting to deal with illegal immigration makes you a racist. There have been those on this thread that have said Trumps speech was a scapegoating of all Hispanics, and I could post you msm person after another that claimed things like TRump is the most racist platform ever based on his speech last night of wanting to deport illegals. That is certainly what Hillary's line is.

Again, I am not accusing you of this I am just saying this is a common tactic against those that want to discuss the problems with illegal immigrants. I assume based on your response you disagree with this, and that is good because it allows us to have a serous discussion.

As far as racists with my ideology, that is a red herring. I am sure all sorts of vile people share many of your opinions, so what is the point of even bringing that up.

a reply to: Grambler

First, Obama has passed to executive actions that allow illegals to stay. Secondly, he has repeatedly refused to enforce laws he doesn't believe in. The deportation numbers seem high because Obama changed how we measure them. We now consider deportations sending people back we catch at the border, and that was never the case before. We have sanctuary cities where law enforcement are told not to contact ICE.

Those executive actions are selective and only apply to non-violent criminals are intended not to break up families. Which laws has he refused to enforce exactly? Care to name the exact ones?

Obama has also hired more border enforcement than previously too. Our border enforcement is at its highest staffing ever. I know you are trying to dismiss Obama's increased deportation numbers with these caveats, but I'm not going to let you slide away from this one. The fact remains that under Obama deportations have increased. Sure some of it may be due to changed metrics, but you are liar if you are going to sit there and claim that those increases don't also have to do with an increased size of our border enforcement.

Sanctuary cities are city governance level thing and don't fall under Obama's domain, so blaming them on Obama is dishonest. He may not be condemning them, but he certainly has no responsibility with setting them up. That is a decision that residents of said city made with their city legislature.

Do you think that illegals that are caught should be held accountable for breaking the law?

I do and they are as I keep trying to point out to you.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: thinline

The main focus of people who support the criminals are saying that building a wall to help enforce American immigration law is racist?

Honestly, I haven't heard people make that claim. You might be projecting a bit.


As far as building a wall it is an utterly f#ing stupid idea that would do nothing to curb immigration, but it would be a huge waste of tax money and an embarrassment for this nation. An 80 billion dollar 20ft wall easily defeated by a 21ft ladder.

what makes it a stupid idea? It's how every country on this earth protects it's borders.

originally posted by: Grambler
First even the people that do the vetting process in the obama administration have said it is impossible to know much about the people in places like Syria coming here.

And again, this doesn't really respond to my point. Many people think we should allow any person struggling to come here (Like kayla on this thread) and still others believe in no borders. I am not saying you believe this, but that many do. This would be anarchy. We have to have reasonable border control.

This is why we used to compromise in this country, but these days the right seems to think that compromising is a betrayal to their party. Obviously some people go too far in their rhetoric, that's why we are supposed to seek a happy middle ground. Not bitch and whine until you get 100% everything you want.

If I could never hear the acronym "RINO" again I'd be a happy camper. The idea of ejecting someone from your party because they dared to compromise with a liberal is one of the most un-American things I've ever heard of.

Whoa, slow down! I didn't say you did this, and if you got that impression, I am sorry. I even mentioned on my thread that other people say things such as full open borders, which I definitely was not talking about you. I am talking about the progressives that say that wanting to deal with illegal immigration makes you a racist. There have been those on this thread that have said Trumps speech was a scapegoating of all Hispanics, and I could post you msm person after another that claimed things like TRump is the most racist platform ever based on his speech last night of wanting to deport illegals. That is certainly what Hillary's line is.

Again, I am not accusing you of this I am just saying this is a common tactic against those that want to discuss the problems with illegal immigrants. I assume based on your response you disagree with this, and that is good because it allows us to have a serous discussion.

As far as racists with my ideology, that is a red herring. I am sure all sorts of vile people share many of your opinions, so what is the point of even bringing that up.

I'm just trying to make it clear here that I'm not looking to have a political mud battle. You look like you are trying to give me an intelligent discourse here so I'd like to keep it that way. Not trying to offend either.