New Harvard/Harris Poll on Immigration

[noonereal]

7 minutes ago, aZjimbo said:

How many clarifications do you need in a day? 

well, i could be like you and ASSume i know someones position because if it's not exactly the same as mine it has to be the exact opposite of mine, that of a commie

because every human on earth that is not a right wing nut IS a commie

[aZjimbo]

24 minutes ago, noonereal said:

well, i could be like you and ASSume i know someones position because if it's not exactly the same as mine it has to be the exact opposite of mine, that of a commie

because every human on earth that is not a right wing nut IS a commie

Oh I see. Thanks for the useless clarification.

[concha]

18 hours ago, Drummer61 said:

Sportsnut demands that somebody on this "board  to prove it" in regards to his citizenship or that his family came through Ellis Island, yet HE NEVER WOULD NOR DID HE DEMAND THAT DEMOCRATS WOULD  DO THE SAME OF 20,000,000 ILLEGAL INVADERS....Think about that.....

Sportsnut is a useless troll.

Like several others on this board, be goes around making claims and judgments, yet when confronted to provide facts facts and evidence to back up his crap, he runs away or flat out refuses.

Intellectually dishonest and useless.

The "Ignore" button is there for a reason:  Folks like Sportsnut.

[RedZone]

4 minutes ago, concha said:

Sportsnut is a useless troll.

Like several others on this board, be goes around making claims and judgments, yet when confronted to provide facts facts and evidence to back up his crap, he runs away or flat out refuses.

Intellectually dishonest and useless.

The "Ignore" button is there for a reason:  Folks like Sportsnut.

Put the entire board on ignore, concha.....don't screw around.

Then you, drummer61, zimmy the clown,, gardenball, high school kid and trump can be right about everything till you puke.

[concha]

6 minutes ago, Drummer61 said:

Your my best advocate, you always prove my points...Rather than discuss or challange any viable,well written post,like conchas, you post a snide,pathetic and kindergarten comment....

He's like a stupid little dog who's sole purpose in life is to shit and piss all over the place.

Make the dog racist and you've got Chip.

[RedZone]

2 minutes ago, concha said:

He's like a stupid little dog who's sole purpose in life is to shit and piss all over the place.

Make the dog racist and you've got Chip.

What are we #randomwinning at today, my little hannity troll?

That's right. Look at the world sideways. 

Freakin creep!

 

[RedZone]

21 minutes ago, Drummer61 said:

Your my best advocate, you always prove my points...Rather than discuss or challange any viable,well written post,like conchas, you post a snide,pathetic and kindergarten comment....

Pipe down, old man.

I gave you your one shot at stardom and you punted like the weak troll you are..

Go pump your shit elsewhere, shit is old.

[NorCalRuss]

On 1/24/2018 at 10:07 AM, noonereal said:

 

Russ

it was a question. 

I made it clear it was a question. I need clarification on your position. 

from that post you seemed extreme and I was surprised so I asked to be clear so i did not have a false impression of you

Nothing I said was extreme. It’s just how it is. If/when dreamers are given citizenship, they will want their parents and family to become citizens.

As a politician, Republicans would be foolish to do so. Basically giving future elections away to the crazy loons on the left. Even if Trump gives every illegal in America citizenship, he or future republicans would be lucky to get a very very small percentage of their votes. 

Personally, I think it’s a f’d up situation. It’s not the “kids” faults their parents brought them here illegally. All they know is this country. So, I would probably give in to them as long as we get something major in return. No sanctuary cities, enforce all immigration laws on the books, and do away with chain immigration, major increase in border patrol and technology on all borders, ports, airports, etc. 

 

 

[noonereal]

7 hours ago, NorCalRuss said:

I would probably give in to them as long as we get something major in return. No sanctuary cities, enforce all immigration laws on the books, and do away with chain immigration, major increase in border patrol and technology on all borders, ports, airports, etc. 

then in the end, your view is the same as mine

thanks for the reply 

(you don't mention a wall but want increased EFFECTIVE boarder safeguards, very practical) 

all in all, none of this if very high on my priority list but I am fairly strongly against sanctuary cities and a useless wall. 

[NorCalRuss]

8 hours ago, noonereal said:

then in the end, your view is the same as mine

thanks for the reply 

(you don't mention a wall but want increased EFFECTIVE boarder safeguards, very practical) 

all in all, none of this if very high on my priority list but I am fairly strongly against sanctuary cities and a useless wall. 

The key is never letting this situation happen again. 

[NorCalRuss]

8 hours ago, noonereal said:

then in the end, your view is the same as mine

thanks for the reply 

(you don't mention a wall but want increased EFFECTIVE boarder safeguards, very practical) 

all in all, none of this if very high on my priority list but I am fairly strongly against sanctuary cities and a useless wall. 

I don’t think we need a wall for majority of areas. There could be a case for wall or some type of barrier in certain locations if not easily patrolled or monitored. Would much rather invest in agents and technology to prohibit illegal immigration. 

[HSFBfan]

18 minutes ago, NorCalRuss said:

I don’t think we need a wall for majority of areas. There could be a case for wall or some type of barrier in certain locations if not easily patrolled or monitored. Would much rather invest in agents and technology to prohibit illegal immigration. 

Trump has called for hiring of more ICE and Border Agents

[thc6795]

28 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

Trump has called for hiring of more ICE and Border Agents

Wonder why? Could it be because he has agreed to amnesty 1.8 million illegals instead of the 800k he has been spouting off about

[HSFBfan]

1 minute ago, thc6795 said:

Wonder why? Could it be because he has agreed to amnesty 1.8 million illegals instead of the 800k he has been spouting off about

Schumer already said NO to that deal. Trump tried to place nice. Ill give citizenship over 12-15 years for the 1.8 million. In return I want the wall border security and the such and Schumer said NO. Schumer is dead in the water. Even DACA people are turning on Schumer

[thc6795]

5 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

Schumer already said NO to that deal. Trump tried to place nice. Ill give citizenship over 12-15 years for the 1.8 million. In return I want the wall border security and the such and Schumer said NO. Schumer is dead in the water. Even DACA people are turning on Schumer

That's why whatever Schumer says don't mean shit. This will be the immigration law bank on it.  

I think Trump caved. Amnesty for 1 million illegals no way. I think the daca kids should get it and immediate family as long as they are productive. But aunts uncles grandma grandpa cousins nieces nephews family dog fuck that

[HSFBfan]

Just now, thc6795 said:

That's why whatever Schumer says don't mean shit. This will be the immigration law bank on it.  

I think Trump caved. Amnesty for 1 million illegals no way. I think the daca kids should get it and immediate family as long as they are productive. But aunts uncles grandma grandpa cousins nieces nephews family dog fuck that

I think your wrong. Trump hasnt caved. He just showed the whole country that the democrats are all about illegals and nothing more. I disagree with your statement on DACA kids and immediate family. Should all be deported. 

Your entitled to your opinion. Have a good weekend

[ORabidOne]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 2:59 PM, concha said:

• 65% of voters would support a DACA deal that secures the Southern border, ends Chain Migration, and eliminates the Visa Lottery... including 68% of Hispanic voters, 64% of African American voters, 64% of Democratic voters, 67% of all independent voters, 63% of liberal voters, and 68% of those who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election cycle.
• 60 percent of voters oppose giving preference to parents who illegally brought their children to the U.S.
• 81% of voters want to reduce legal immigration from its current level of more than 1 million per year, and 63% want it cut by at least half.
• 53 percent of respondents said they supported “building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the US-Mexico border,”
• 61 percent said current security along the US-Mexico border is inadequate.
• 79% of voters think immigration priority for those coming to the U.S. should be based on a person’s ability to contribute to America as measured by their education and skills—and not based on a person having relatives in the U.S.

 

Thoughts?

And how far do you think that THIS would go with Chucky and Nancy? They want it ALL, while giving NOTHING in return! Because we have that stupid ass 60 vote passage deal in Congress!

[Belly Bob]

On 1/23/2018 at 4:52 PM, concha said:

What makes you so dismissive of our laws, sovereignty and the burden on our welfare and educational systems that could actually be used to help actual citizens?

Freedom of movement has always been considered a basic human right, for as long as people have been thinking about human rights.

Laws can be unjust, when they violate human rights. Slavery, for example, used to be legal in this country; but it was never just, because it always violated human rights.

So maybe considerations of basic human rights should make us hesitate a bit about enforcing laws that restrict where human beings may walk. 

Of course I may not walk into your house without your permission; but that's because private property is another basic human right. 

The United States is not anybody's private property; if it was, it could be sold. 

[concha]

9 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

Freedom of movement has always been considered a basic human right, for as long as people have been thinking about human rights.

Laws can be unjust, when they violate human rights. Slavery, for example, used to be legal in this country; but it was never just, because it always violated human rights.

So maybe considerations of basic human rights should make us hesitate a bit about enforcing laws that restrict where human beings may walk. 

Of course I may not walk into your house without your permission; but that's because private property is another basic human right. 

The United States is not anybody's private property; if it was, it could be sold. 

Is there a law preventing the country from being sold?  Countries actually do sell territory. Think Alaska and the Louisiana Territory.

The US is, effectively, the private property of its citizens and any decisions about who may enter and for what reasons are purely up t the American people. 

Freedom of movement ended the moment people developed a sense of tribe and territoriality.  And that is long before any concept of human rights existed.

[RedZone]

9 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

Freedom of movement has always been considered a basic human right, for as long as people have been thinking about human rights.

Laws can be unjust, when they violate human rights. Slavery, for example, used to be legal in this country; but it was never just, because it always violated human rights.

So maybe considerations of basic human rights should make us hesitate a bit about enforcing laws that restrict where human beings may walk. 

Of course I may not walk into your house without your permission; but that's because private property is another basic human right. 

The United States is not anybody's private property; if it was, it could be sold. 

Another basic human right is going to a concert or car wash without getting your brains blown out of your heads.

These uneducated blockheads could care less about those basic rights.

They go "mute" on the subject.

This immigration thing is just a front for these rednecks. 

 

[RedZone]

46 minutes ago, concha said:

Is there a law preventing the country from being sold?  Countries actually do sell territory. Think Alaska and the Louisiana Territory.

 

Totally absurd, but NOT surprising. 

[Belly Bob]

30 minutes ago, concha said:

Is there a law preventing the country from being sold?  Countries actually do sell territory. Think Alaska and the Louisiana Territory.

The US is, effectively, the private property of its citizens and any decisions about who may enter and for what reasons are purely up t the American people. 

Freedom of movement ended the moment people developed a sense of tribe and territoriality.  And that is long before any concept of human rights existed.

Buying and selling land isn't the same things as buying and selling states. And I agree with you that the state could, say, take my house from me and sell it to someone else. And I suppose they could do that legally, by passing the appropriate a law. That's the sort of thing that used to go on during slavery. My point is that if the state did that, it would violate my basic right to private property.

Basic human rights don't end. They can be violated (again, think about slavery) but they don't end. That's the point  about their being inalienable. Maybe you don't believe there any such things.

[concha]

8 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Buying and selling land isn't the same things as buying and selling states. And I agree with you that the state could, say, take my house from me and sell it to someone else. And I suppose they could do that legally, by passing the appropriate a law. That's the sort of thing that used to go on during slavery. My point is that if the state did that, it would violate my basic right to private property.

Basic human rights don't end. They can be violated (again, think about slavery) but they don't end. That's the point  about their being inalienable. Maybe you don't believe there any such things.

You may have "a basic right" to private property here in this country at this time.

Some people think that health care is a "basic human right". Of course, that presupposes that another human being is obligated to give it to you... which brings us to the slavery you have pointed out.

[RedZone]

14 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Buying and selling land isn't the same things as buying and selling states.

trump, should sell Kentucky and keep Deleware 

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

#MAGA

[Belly Bob]

1 hour ago, concha said:

You may have "a basic right" to private property here in this country at this time.

Some people think that health care is a "basic human right". Of course, that presupposes that another human being is obligated to give it to you... which brings us to the slavery you have pointed out.

Does your use of quotation marks here indicate that you don't believe in basic human rights?

I don't think I get your second point. It doesn't follow that if X believes that F is a basic human right, then Y is obligated to give anything to anyone. X's belief may be false, for example. And I don't see how slavery fits in.

But if your point is that the US's forcing you to pay for my healthcare is somehow wrong (like slavery is somehow wrong), you'd better have some other story to tell besides one that appeal to "rights" or law violations.