The President Trump Immigration Thread

[printcraft]

Just out of curiosity, with all these people being deported, and all.... I get that Mexicans are simply bussed back to Mexico, but what happens to people from other places in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa? Are they given plane tickets?

Yes, one way, but to save fuel the plane won't be making any landings. TMMV.

 

[T.Lex]

This can actually be awkward for immigrants who fly through 3rd party countries before arriving in the US. For instance, if someone from Mexico were to fly to Toronto, then to Indy, it isn't like Canada will take them.

 

[Twangbanger]

...politically, that is VERY unlikely to happen. Both sides need the other side of the equation to try to retain their seat...

If by "retain their seat," you mean "keep the flow of lobbyist cash moving towards them," then yes, I agree exactly.

It reminds me of the Right-to-Work issue in Indiana. To some legislators, that issue was probably worth more to them unresolved, than resolved, because once it gets "resolved"...the suits with suitcases full of cash go away. After it passed, I suspect many on both sides secretly regretted the loss of the issue.

 

[gwingo]

Just out of curiosity, with all these people being deported, and all.... I get that Mexicans are simply bussed back to Mexico, but what happens to people from other places in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa? Are they given plane tickets?

Kutnupe,
They are flown out. Sometimes on a commercial flight in the custody of a Deportation Officer and sometimes on JPATS flights which is also monitored by Deportation Officers.

 

[T.Lex]

If by "retain their seat," you mean "keep the flow of lobbyist cash moving towards them," then yes, I agree exactly.

It reminds me of the Right-to-Work issue in Indiana. To some legislators, that issue was probably worth more to them unresolved, than resolved, because once it gets "resolved"...the suits with suitcases full of cash go away. After it passed, I suspect many on both sides secretly regretted the loss of the issue.

For some reason, I had to double check and make sure I hadn't opened the constitutional carry thread... or threads....

 

[Bennettjh]

That there is ANY squealing over removing people in direct violation of the law of this country is the real tragedy here.

Yep.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe,
They are flown out. Sometimes on a commercial flight in the custody of a Deportation Officer and sometimes on JPATS flights which is also monitored by Deportation Officers.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yep.

I'd agree with that also. If you here illegally, and caught, they fact that you have assimilated isn't a defense.

 

[OakRiver]

Because this is a firearms forum I do want to point out the irony in position the Left has chosen;
- firearms nee to be tightly regulated. Infringement of a fundamental right is perfectly fine if it saves one life
- deporting those here unlawfully is pointless as we can't remove them all

 

[actaeon277]

Robert Reich: Trump to Blame for Rioting in Sweden

 

[Sylvain]

Kutnupe,
They are flown out. Sometimes on a commercial flight in the custody of a Deportation Officer and sometimes on JPATS flights which is also monitored by Deportation Officers.

For non-criminal deportation you are on a commercial flight on your own.
Your passport seized by the captain until you reach a foreign country.

 

[jamil]

I believe it's actually easy to identify the source of non-convergence on this issue, in general. Simply ask each party the following question:

"Are you willing to allow stand-alone bills for 1) "Building the Wall," and 2) Amnesty, to be brought for up-or-down votes?" Yes, or No?

Not, "what do polls say?" Not "can it pass?" (let democracy decide that). Simply: should they, individually, be brought up for vote?

Those who answer "Yes," might be trying to achieve convergence.

Those who vacillate, or insist on shacking the two issues together, almost certainly are in the other camp.

How about an INGO litmus-test? Put me down as a "yes."

Yep. A 'yes' is too formal. Definitely put me down for a yep. And I think you're spot on with the point of convergence. I remember back when they were talking "immigration reform" the Republicans wanted to fix things individually, while the Democrats wanted all or nothing. I think they knew that was going no where, but it was said anyway for political theater to use as a big stick about those mean old immigration-hatin' conservatives.

 

[jamil]

If by "retain their seat," you mean "keep the flow of lobbyist cash moving towards them," then yes, I agree exactly.

It reminds me of the Right-to-Work issue in Indiana. To some legislators, that issue was probably worth more to them unresolved, than resolved, because once it gets "resolved"...the suits with suitcases full of cash go away. After it passed, I suspect many on both sides secretly regretted the loss of the issue.

Kinda like constitutional carry.

 

[bwframe]

IPS board passes resolution to show support for immigrant families | CBS 4 - Indianapolis News, Weather, Traffic and Sports | WTTV


...INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. - The Indianapolis Public Schools board reaffirmed its support for immigrant families just days after new national guidelines for increased deportation efforts were announced.

Resolution No. 7736 outlines the district's approach to immigration issues including not requiring social security numbers from students and not inquiring about a student's or family's immigration status...

The resolution passed Thursday night at a school board meeting.

“IPS will remain a safe and welcoming place for all students and families regardless of their immigration status,” IPS said on Twitter.

 

[actaeon277]

I support immigrant families.
Just not so supportive of "illegal" or "undocumented"

 

[Sylvain]

I support immigrant families.
Just not so supportive of "illegal" or "undocumented"

The media love to not make a distinction between the two.

I read some articles where they called illegal immigrants just "immigrants".
Or they say that "immigrant families are worried about ICE raids", no ILLEGAL immigrants are worried, legal ones have nothing to worry about.

They also like to call people racist if you don't support illegal immigration.Doesn't matter if you support the same people coming legally.

 

[actaeon277]

The media love to not make a distinction between the two.

I read some articles where they called illegal immigrants just "immigrants".
Or they say that "immigrant families are worried about ICE raids", no ILLEGAL immigrants are worried, legal ones have nothing to worry about.

They also like to call people racist if you don't support illegal immigration.Doesn't matter if you support the same people coming legally.

Yes
I know.

 

[Twangbanger]

Some are beginning to "get it:" Immigration in the political sphere is a practical issue, and not a moral one:

Democrats are in denial on immigration

This issue is not going away, and now that Donald Trump has pried the lid off it, those on the "open borders" side are going to have to put away the histrionics, and learn to make pragmatic arguments.

This is one of the things I hoped the election of Donald Trump would accomplish.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Muhammad Ali Jr. says that he was questioned for about "an hour and 45 minutes" after immigration officials asked him if he was Muslim.

This it's true, or just a high-profile name calling negative attention to immigration issues?

 

[bwframe]

This rings of the never substantiated claims by those like John Lewis and our own Andre Carson. N-words and being spit on, yet no one has any video in a sea of cell phones?