Yes. Illegal immigrants are illegal by definition. Rewarding their illegal behavior with citizenship is retarded.So are speeders. Do you have a point?
I’m not claiming they are gang members, rapists etc. that’s right wing bullshit. I just don’t think rewarding them for illegally entering the country, with citizenship is in any way smart. It just encourages more illegal entry.I think you guys view them as being criminals on a day-to-day basis, but the crime they committed occurred once, when they entered.
And it's a minor crime, a misdemeanor similar to trespassing.
On a day-to-day basis, most of them are just living regular lives, going to work, going to school, spending time with their families.
The way Trump supporters talk about illegal immigrants gives the impression Trump supporters view them as poorly as one would view a murderer. At the end of the day, the vast majority of them are ordinary people who are desperate for a job. They should not be treated as if they were "invaders" as Captain Adverse describes them.
And speeders are illegal by definition. That statement is useless and to use your word retarded. It is meaningless.Yes. Illegal immigrants are illegal by definition. Rewarding their illegal behavior with citizenship is retarded.
I’m not claiming they are gang members, rapists etc. that’s right wing bullshit.
Non sequiturAnd speeders are illegal by definition.
It’s a false equivalence.That statement is useless and to use your word retarded. It is meaningless.
This is rewarding illegal behavior.We ignore illegal behavior all the time.
Been discussed.that it costs $$$$$$$$$$$$ of US Taxpayer dollars for illegally here people ? that was your point ?
Read: Another comparison goes flat.I love my country. If it has problems I'm going to stay and be active and vote and work to fix them.
That'd be Karma at it's finest.its not sudden and if Trump came here illegally he needs to be deported
Nope not a non sequitur. You seem enamored of the idea that since illegals are "by definition illegal" they need to be rounded up and removed. I'm just pointing out that the same is true of many of your fellow citizens and probably yourself. There is nothing special about pointing out that illegals are here illegally.Non sequitur
It’s a false equivalence.
This is rewarding illegal behavior.
Textbook non sequitur.Nope not a non sequitur.
Citizens can’t be expelled from the country.You seem enamored of the idea that since illegals are "by definition illegal" they need to be rounded up and removed. I'm just pointing out that the same is true of many of your fellow citizens and probably yourself.
There is when you want to reward them for illegal behavior.There is nothing special about pointing out that illegals are here illegally.
It’s objectively true they are by definition, not law abiding.It's frankly an unthinking, lazy argument.
Been discussed.
That'd be Karma at it's finest.
Quite sudden as you seem to have no current problems with Trump's run-ins with the law or his current disregard for constitutional law.
Ya might want to look up the meaning ofTextbook non sequitur.
Citizens can’t be expelled from the country.
There is when you want to reward them for illegal behavior.
It’s objectively true they are by definition, not law abiding.
It's certainly an incentive.But none of this substantiates your claim that they are coming for these benefits.
It's not the people of those two states that are willing. It's the idiot politicians.FWIW, I'm not for providing health care subsidies for undocumented immigrants at the expense of citizens or documented immigrants. But if the people of NY and CA are willing to foot the bill, it's their money and their business.
False.He supports agricultural workers and condemns them on alternating days.
I know the meaning.Ya might want to look up the meaning of
non sequitur.
RightIt means a conclusion that does not
follow from a preceding statement.
lolI didn't make a conclusion I only pointed out a similarity.
OkOtherwise this argument is going nowhere and I have better things to do with my time. Your argument, such as it is, is totally unconvincing.
Yep, it'd just "go away"....no more fear of replacement. A virtual heaven on earth.Migrant influx pushing Mass. shelter costs past $1B in FY25: report
Massachusetts taxpayers are on course to spend $1 billion on the state’s emergency shelter program for FY25 with migrant families making up a significant share of those receiving assistance, according to a new report.www.foxnews.com
Massachusetts taxpayers are on course to spend $1 billion on the state’s emergency shelter program for FY25 with migrant families making up a significant share of those receiving assistance, according to a new report.
Gov. Maura Healey’s administration has already spent $830 million so far in FY25 – which started on July 1 – accommodating more than 4,000 families who have been receiving taxpayer-funded shelter, food, education, legal aid and case management.
The costs work out at about $3,496 per week per family, or around $1,000 per person per week for the program, known as the Emergency Assistance (EA) system.
For comparison .... Approximately 25 million or 17% of taxpayers in the US earn less than $1,000 per week, according to Quora
If there were no illegally here people, all the above would pretty much go away and .... I thought they were all out in the field picking our fruits and veggies ???
Complete with a silver spoon. I wonder who cleans his mansions?Trump isn't here illegally - he was born a US citizen
Your question "Should law abiding immigrants be given citizenship?" is misleading. It suggests the immigrant in question came here legally. No immigrant, legal or other, should be "given" citizenship. If you come here legally, there is already a pathway to citizenship. Perhaps we should increase the opportunities to immigrate here legally.Trump has recognized that undocumented immigrants are important for several industries and has backed off arresting and deporting them. I would argue that there are a lot more industries that need these workers to operate effectively.
Those immigrants who haven't committed crimes and are productively employed - should they be allowed to remain and given a path to citizenship?
Yep, it'd just "go away"....no more fear of replacement. A virtual heaven on earth.
Complete with a silver spoon. I wonder who cleans his mansions?
Oh! We were talking about Trump's lawlessness you're conveniently avoiding.....
Trump has done no such thing. And specifically what industries require undocumented immigrants????????
Legal immigrants gain citizenship in the US all the time All they have to do is go through the legal process. Illegal immigrants have by definition committed crimes.
Yes. Illegal immigrants are illegal by definition. Rewarding their illegal behavior with citizenship is retarded.
BS. Americans are not afraid of hard work and the wages are only low because shitty employers seek to take advantage of very low wages the illegals are willing to work for.Those industries where you do not want to work because the work is too hard and/or the pay is too low.
Again, BS. It is in no way, shape or form, legal presence, pending a decision. It was a rogue US Administration simply allowing it, fully taking advantage of the asylum court system getting overwhelmed, and with the knowledge that only a small fraction of them would ever show up for a court date, one to three years in the future and 85% would be turned down. It's called "gaming the system".For many, the only crime they committed is entering the country illegally. After they have filed for refugee status, they are often considered to be in the country in a form of “lawful presence” pending a decision, and therefore not illegal anymore. Their deportation is delayed while application approval is pending.
Here's an interesting quote from our discussion history:Trump has no citizenship "lawlessness" that I know of - if he did, show me
it literally IS the conversation you know - illegally here people
According to your depiction, Trump (chronically) fits this accusation quite well.then anytime anyone breaks any laws because it benefits them and they don't want to do things legally ..... you're ok with that?
or do you cherry pick what laws can be broken and which cannot ? and if that's the case, you understand others can do the same, right ? for the same reasons
Life isn't fair.Immigration attorneys cost a lot of of money and the visa caps are too low. It's not a practical, realistic option for the vast majority of people who migrate here. Not saying they should cut the line, but from the perspective of the illegal immigrant it makes absolutely no sense, especially if they are poor and have no skills, to do things properly. For the vast majority it's better to sneak over the border and risk being deported. You would do exactly the same thing if you were in their shoes.
BS. Americans are not afraid of hard work and the wages are only low because shitty employers seek to take advantage of very low wages the illegals are willing to work for.
Again, BS. It is in no way, shape or form, legal presence, pending a decision. It was a rogue US Administration simply allowing it, fully taking advantage of the asylum court system getting overwhelmed, and with the knowledge that only a small fraction of them would ever show up for a court date, one to three years in the future and 85% would be turned down. It's called "gaming the system".
Being given a court date for an asylum hearing is not amnesty. The only illegals that have received amnesty are the 12 million or so that were granted amnesty by a failed comprehensive immigration bill signed into law during the Reagan Administration. I do not respect them; however, they are legal and not subject to deportation.If they are here and are illegal and have never submitted any paperwork, than they should go. If those people have been given any kind of amnesty, than that should be respected.
Here's an interesting quote from our discussion history:
According to your depiction, Trump (chronically) fits this accusation quite well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?