3rdnlng Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 So you agree that the migrants come here because of the economy and the jobs? That and all the freebies. So what you're saying is, four more years of Obama's economic policies and 3rd won't have to shoot all the illegals after all? Never thought of it that way. Well, say what you want about the man, but at least Barry got rid of all the Mexicans. Shooting illegals is Jim's job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 That and all the freebies. The jobs are gone. The freebies are still here. Immigration has slowed. Do the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I have a solution. Let the 12MM Mexicans stay and make them citizens. Then take 12MM of our most worthless Americans (criminal records, no history of work, DiN, etc) and strip them of their citizenship and deport them to Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d4rksabre Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I have a solution. Let the 12MM Mexicans stay and make them citizens. Then take 12MM of our most worthless Americans (criminal records, no history of work, DiN, etc) and strip them of their citizenship and deport them to Mexico. That would be the main ingredient in Super Narco-State. Just add cocaine. Could you imagine that? A bunch of angry American ex-cons who want to get back at the US employed by the Mexican drug cartels and the Mexican government? Santa Anna would finally get his revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 The jobs are gone. The freebies are still here. Immigration has slowed. Do the math. I did the math. 1.4 million are coming here on a yearly basis for the freebies. The 1.4 million that are leaving are leaving because they've lost their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) Washington Times Supreme Court casts doubt on Obamas immigration law claimWednesday, April 25, 2012 Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administrations claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them. The court was hearing arguments on Arizonas immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs. The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal governments role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument. It seems to me the federal government just doesnt want to know whos here illegally, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point. The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when its on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants. These decisions have to be made at the national level, he said. But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that. Im terribly confused by your answer, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call. . Edited April 25, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 “These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said. They are. They're called "laws". I really, really don't get how anyone can argue that states can't enforce federal law. By that logic, if someone drives a bus while drunk into Arizona from New Mexico (covered by 18 USC 17A), the Arizona authorities are expressly forbidden from stopping said bus driver. And if I were the governor of Arizona, I'd have people combing through the federal laws right now identifying the ones we're no longer going to enforce on behalf of the federal government. It's such a thoroughly whacked argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 They are. They're called "laws". I really, really don't get how anyone can argue that states can't enforce federal law. By that logic, if someone drives a bus while drunk into Arizona from New Mexico (covered by 18 USC 17A), the Arizona authorities are expressly forbidden from stopping said bus driver. And if I were the governor of Arizona, I'd have people combing through the federal laws right now identifying the ones we're no longer going to enforce on behalf of the federal government. It's such a thoroughly whacked argument. See, they are trying to fix the state budgets. Once states realize they no longer have to pay people to help enforce federal laws, just think of the savings they could realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 See, they are trying to fix the state budgets. Once states realize they no longer have to pay people to help enforce federal laws, just think of the savings they could realize. There's some that'd be REALLY fun. Like the federal law against genocide... So if some Neo-Nazi nutjob machine guns a synagogue, claiming he wants to eliminate the Jews, the municipality he's in can charge him with murder and incarcerate. But then the federal government steps in and says "Sorry, we're charging him with genocide; federal law supercedes state law." So what then? The state has to release him, because anything else, even turning him over to the federal authorities, would be de facto enforcement of federal law? Or gun laws...does that mean that I can purchase a gun out-of-state now, because any state prohibition against it represents enforcement of interstate commerce by the state? Once again...amateur hour in the Justice Department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 That would be the main ingredient in Super Narco-State. Just add cocaine. Could you imagine that? A bunch of angry American ex-cons who want to get back at the US employed by the Mexican drug cartels and the Mexican government? Santa Anna would finally get his revenge. Yes, but they're Americans so they'll be too dumb and lazy to figure out how to get back across the boarder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yes, but they're Americans so they'll be too dumb and lazy to figure out how to get back across the boarder. BORDER, god!@#$ingdamnit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yes, but they're Americans so they'll be too dumb and lazy to figure out how to get back across the boarder. Considering the first part of your statement concerning Americans - I'd like to think that was a intenshunel misspeelling But I doubt it was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 BORDER, god!@#$ingdamnit! D'oh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 BORDER, god!@#$ingdamnit! C'mon Tom.......give KD a brake! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 C'mon Tom.......give KD a brake! . Even I'm not infallable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 Annie doesn't need to get her guns, she already has them: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51108 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) As I said last time: I'm not prepared to call 11 million people I don't know, criminals, because they want a better life for themselves and their kids. I am prepared to call the people who only come here for work, and then go back home, with 0 interest in kicking in, like every other immigrant group has, or being part of/building the country...douchebags. Makers vs. Takers, all over again. If we are to categorize illegals, that's probably the best way. Put the makers on a path to citizenship, immediately, to include amnesty I mean seriously, WTF is anyone going to do with 11 million people? Many of them are decent people...the makers...so why bust their balls unnecessarily? Takers are the people who refuse to kick in, and improve themselves, and their new country. Takers in most cases ARE criminals. See, I have no interest in treating everybody the same, ever, in anything. It's the height of unfairness. Why should we treat Takers the same as Makers? We should go out of our way to help the makers, and F the Takers over as much as possible. Therefore, I still like my "what to do with the Takers" idea, which has the added benefit of significantly increasing the amount of time between border crossing attempts. Divide Takers into groups of 100, by country, make them build a Trireme(big ass Greek row boat), and make them row it back to their country. Provide them food, health care, and water etc. along the way, make sure the boat is seaworthy, etc. It takes as long as it takes. Tow trireme back and make the next group of 100 row home. Nobody said anything about HOW we deport people, and if we are ensuring their safety....then what's the problem? They have no right to complain, as their claim is based on an illegal act. Don't like it? Don't come here illegally, and then act like a douchebag. And, who will stop us? The UN? The Chilean Navy? Oh, and that wall everybody wants built? Assign groups of 100 Mexican illegals, Takers, to each section and have them build it. Let them "escape" back to Mexico if they want...and deport themselves. Edited April 26, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 As I said last time: I'm not prepared to call 11 million people I don't know, criminals, because they want a better life for themselves and their kids. Aside from the fact that they're breaking the law...no, they're not criminals at all. (Yes, I get your point. You worded it stupidly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Annie doesn't need to get her guns, she already has them: http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=51108 Yeay, Ann Coulter giving economics lessons to the Wall Street Journal. She should stick to insults. It's the only thing she's good at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 Yeay, Ann Coulter giving economics lessons to the Wall Street Journal. She should stick to insults. It's the only thing she's good at. Do you ever have anything to say that isn't an attempt at a put down? BTW, what is yeay? Is it this? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yeay Or is it this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeay_Mao First rule when trying to put someone down-------------don't !@#$ up yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts