"Rob Emanuel" Declares Chicago Will Always Be a Sanctuary City . "All Illegals are Safe and Supported In Chicago" (crime, attorney)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So we should disregard immigration laws so we can have dishwashers? Probably not worth the tradeoff. And not only that, we somehow managed to fill minimum wage jobs before illegal immigration began in earnest after Reagan's 1986 amnesty bill.
I'm not saying we should disregard immigration laws, but I'm saying this probably a battle not worth fighting. I agree we shouldn't be burdening taxpayers to provide services for illegals who themselves may not be paying taxes, but at what point do the costs outweigh the benefits? I don't see how it's financially feasible to deport hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of people without some extreme financial output by the Feds.
I'm not saying we should disregard immigration laws, but I'm saying this probably a battle not worth fighting. I agree we shouldn't be burdening taxpayers to provide services for illegals who themselves may not be paying taxes, but at what point do the costs outweigh the benefits? I don't see how it's financially feasible to deport hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of people without some extreme financial output by the Feds.
While it would initially cost money. It saves money in the long run. It costs over 30k a year to keep someone locked up in a Jail. Why not just pay 800 bucks and deport them?
I'm not saying we should disregard immigration laws, but I'm saying this probably a battle not worth fighting. I agree we shouldn't be burdening taxpayers to provide services for illegals who themselves may not be paying taxes, but at what point do the costs outweigh the benefits? I don't see how it's financially feasible to deport hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of people without some extreme financial output by the Feds.
Well, cost is of no import to Trump. He will be building a wall and a massive infrastructure program while reducing taxes by yuuuuge amounts.
Ive encountered this multiple times. Once you state facts, the " ist " words start to float out of no where... I don't know how any American Citizen With a Brain can justify breaking federal law and ignoring immigration policies that are in place.
It really blows my mind.
I think the ACLU and Obama Administration really shot themselves in the proverbial kiester in the Arizona v. United States case. That case came about when Jan Brewer signed SB1070. Among other things, that law made it a state crime to be in the country illegally and authorized state law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws.
The ACLU and Obama Administration were opposed and came up with a clever argument in opposition. They argued that immigration was exclusively a federal prerogative, and that the State of Arizona was in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it intruded upon this federal prerogative. The Supremacy Claus, of course, prevents states from doing things which are solely within the power of the federal government to do, such as regulating railroads, prosecuting people for treason v. the U.S., signing treaties with foreign governments, preventing federal mandates on desegregation of schools, and, most recently, from adopting voter registration requirements which are stricter than an Obama administration regulation which only requires voters to assert under oath that they are U.S. citizens.
The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court agreed with the ACLU and Obama, and held that the federal government's power over immigration was "broad and undoubted" and even "complementary state regulation is impermissible." Thus, Arizona's law was deemed to have been preempted by federal law and was thus unenforceable. That marked the end of the Arizona law, put the brakes on similar laws in other states, and effectively left immigration enforcement in the sole and then-liberal hands of the federal government.
Of course, the champaign was really flowing at the ACLU offices after that one. And all was well while Obama was in office. Indeed, he even signed an executive order effectively giving amnesty to certain illegal immigrants, and there was nothing that any state or local government could do about it.
But now, things have been turned on their head. Unfortunately for the ACLU, and big city politicians trying to gain political capital, Arizona v. U.S. will certainly end up being a handy tool that Trump will be able to use to easily get past any state or municipal obstructionists who stand in his way of his decidedly different prerogatives on immigration!
I'm not saying we should disregard immigration laws, but I'm saying this probably a battle not worth fighting. I agree we shouldn't be burdening taxpayers to provide services for illegals who themselves may not be paying taxes, but at what point do the costs outweigh the benefits? I don't see how it's financially feasible to deport hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of people without some extreme financial output by the Feds.
We actually agree on this one, to some extent anyway. I think it'll be cumbersome, messy and costly to forcibly deport (but then again, my mutual fund and 401k were supposed to plummet on 11/9 but actually went up). Trump can do it, and very well may try, but it will be difficult. This is why I proposed that we focus on the employers - in the form of business-death sanctions against the company and severe fines against the owners that are impossible to discharge (like unpaid taxes). If you cut off the demand for the cheap labor, those who are here illegally will self-deport. Enforcing that would also be costly, I understand, but probably less so than focusing on the individual workers.
Note - if we go after the employers, it would be much more effective, but Trump would never do that. He hired undocumented Polish workers to build his NY Trump Tower in 1980.
In the summer of 1980, Donald Trump faced a big problem. For six months, undocumented Polish laborers had been clearing the future site of Trump Tower, his signature real estate project on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue, where he now lives, maintains his private offices and hosts his presidential campaign.
The men were putting in 12-hour shifts with inadequate safety equipment at subpar wages that their contractor paid sporadically, if at all. A lawyer for many of the Poles demanded that the workers be paid or else he would serve Trump with a lien on the property. One Polish worker even went to Trump’s office to ask him for money in person, according to sworn testimony and a deposition filed under oath in a court case.
He denied he knew they were undocumented, but the court case documents show that he did know.
Note - if we go after the employers, it would be much more effective, but Trump would never do that. He hired undocumented Polish workers to build his NY Trump Tower in 1980.
He denied he knew they were undocumented, but the court case documents show that he did know.
Congrats! That's a very old ding. I don't think it's quite as old as some of the groping ones that the mainstream media was regurgitating but still quite old. If true, it also shows that he knows how the game works. That could be a good thing.
I mean, I don't know if this is true or not but I'm sure he was no saint while building up his empire, I'll give you that much. But put moral outrage aside because he's now the President, not a guy building a luxury high rise in NYC.
I think the focus should be on what he will do for the betterment of the country. And this isn't some piddling little campaign promise like "I'll bring jobs to the middle class!" This was the cornerstone of his campaign. I think he has to make good on it, or else there will be consequences from his base. I believe he will be more concerned about that than pissing off business owners, which, given his focus on Ford and Carrier during the campaign, he does not seem to care much about.
Congrats! That's a very old ding. I don't think it's quite as old as some of the groping ones that the mainstream media was regurgitating but still quite old. If true, it also shows that he knows how the game works. That could be a good thing.
I mean, I don't know if this is true or not but I'm sure he was no saint while building up his empire, I'll give you that much. But put moral outrage aside because he's now the President, not a guy building a luxury high rise in NYC.
I think the focus should be on what he will do for the betterment of the country. And this isn't some piddling little campaign promise like "I'll bring jobs to the middle class!" This was the cornerstone of his campaign. I think he has to make good on it, or else there will be consequences from his base. I believe he will be more concerned about that than pissing off business owners, which, given his focus on Ford and Carrier during the campaign, he does not seem to care much about.
If he really cares about illegal immigration, why not crack down on those who employ them.
"The border security issue is, at this point, 90 to 95 percent solved," Frank Sharry, head of the pro-immigrant group America’s Voice, told Ezra yesterday. "Employer verification is, at this point, less than 10 percent solved."
Make them *all* use E-verify and it would really help.
One obvious thing to do that would combat employers who hire undocumented workers would be to boost the budgets of WHD and ICE, so that they have enough investigators to handle the caseload. MPI recommends that. Making E-Verify is more difficult. Simply mandating employers use it isn't sufficient, as low participation rates in even states that mandate e-verify usage show. MPI concludes that the only way to make E-Verify work is to (a) greatly expand its use, perhaps by mandating it nationally (b) combine it with a path to legalization so the number of undocumented workers is drastically reduced and (c) continue tweaking it to weed out false positives.
I think the ACLU and Obama Administration really shot themselves in the proverbial kiester in the Arizona v. United States case. That case came about when Jan Brewer signed SB1070. Among other things, that law made it a state crime to be in the country illegally and authorized state law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws.
The ACLU and Obama Administration were opposed and came up with a clever argument in opposition. They argued that immigration was exclusively a federal prerogative, and that the State of Arizona was in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it intruded upon this federal prerogative. The Supremacy Claus, of course, prevents states from doing things which are solely within the power of the federal government to do, such as regulating railroads, prosecuting people for treason v. the U.S., signing treaties with foreign governments, preventing federal mandates on desegregation of schools, and, most recently, from adopting voter registration requirements which are stricter than an Obama administration regulation which only requires voters to assert under oath that they are U.S. citizens.
The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court agreed with the ACLU and Obama, and held that the federal government's power over immigration was "broad and undoubted" and even "complementary state regulation is impermissible." Thus, Arizona's law was deemed to have been preempted by federal law and was thus unenforceable. That marked the end of the Arizona law, put the brakes on similar laws in other states, and effectively left immigration enforcement in the sole and then-liberal hands of the federal government.
Of course, the champaign was really flowing at the ACLU offices after that one. And all was well while Obama was in office. Indeed, he even signed an executive order effectively giving amnesty to certain illegal immigrants, and there was nothing that any state or local government could do about it.
But now, things have been turned on their head. Unfortunately for the ACLU, and big city politicians trying to gain political capital, Arizona v. U.S. will certainly end up being a handy tool that Trump will be able to use to easily get past any state or municipal obstructionists who stand in his way of his decidedly different prerogatives on immigration!
My understanding was, Arizona was not deporting the illegals themselves, they were taking the illegals and handing them over to the feds, making it easier for the feds to deport. They obviously didn't tell the feds to deport, only made it easier for them, by dropping them on their front doorstep.
And so the issue in the U.S. Supreme Court decision was Arizona could not be doing this based soley on race, well nationality. As Arizona was only doing this to Mexicans. And so the Supp. Ct. struck down and said you have to do it to all races/nationalities equally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
