The President Trump Immigration Thread

[BigBoxaJunk]

I remember being on a big construction site one day and the concrete footings contractor employed mostly Hispanic workers. They were breaking for lunch and one young guy was upset that he had to go to Pizza Hut, and he didn't want to go there. But they wanted at least one guy who could speak English to go with each group and I guess he drew the short straw for that. I guess that's first world problems for an immigrant worker, although he might have felt he was being exploited.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Perhaps you haven't heard, but many of the illegal immigrants are under indentured servitude to the cartel coyotes who shipped them here for $3-6,000. They might have "volunteered" to work off the debt, but funny how the debt never goes down. And, yes, those who don't pay, or who don't pay the suddenly added fees, are killed.

Perhaps you haven't heard, but... you know what, nevermind. The above is full of misinformation.

 

[Dddrees]

Chicago sues over Sanctuary Funding Requirements.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-immigration-sanctuary-idUSL1N1KT09R

 

[ghitch75]

again......

so what Illinois don't have a pot to **** in and when push comes to shove they will fold like a wet sack.....i hope they jerk every dime they get....

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Exploit? Profit along with maybe; a fair days work for a fair days wages. Too many people misunderstand the balance that needs to go on there. Most peoples justice is peeking out of the blindfold with a bag of lead shot in her hand.

The explicit threat of calling ICE and having the laborer deported alters that balance. When one party has a figurative "gun to their head", with the other party's finger on trigger, that is exploitive... I'm not talking about Marxist gibberish that highjacked the word.

 

[jamil]

automatic planting machines. They are growing tiny seedlings in greenhouses and then planting plants instead of seeds. Massively reducing field time to get a mature plant.

Technology will again replace farm workers is my point

I agree, but agriculture isn't the only area where illegal labor is used. Drive through a neighborhood a few weeks after storm damage. Every crew repairing homes looks like Mexicans. It may be that they're not illegal. But likely they are.

Especially on roofing crews. When it was time to replace my roof a couple of years go, I got an estimate from several roofers. One of them boasted that he's cheaper because he can pay his crew less. It seemed obvious he was implying that they're illegals. He boasted about how fast his "Mexicans" could put up a roof.

Agreed! The cost of labor being another term for WAGES. In the time after we did the amnesty in the mid-late 80's, we've had 12 million additional illegal aliens, most of them low-skill laborers, enter the country. And in that time period, the wages for low-skill labor have been flat while other wages have increased 40-50%.

It's amazing to me that progressives can argue that you cannot "ban" illegals from working, because the cost of produce would sky rocket... and then turn around and argue that illegals have no impact on low skill labor wages. The reason they must lie is to continue getting the votes of native low skill workers who haven't seen a raise in decades.

Some of those laborers "woke" for the 2016 election and voted for Trump.

Chicago sues over Sanctuary Funding Requirements.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-immigration-sanctuary-idUSL1N1KT09R

If there is any consistent jurisprudence, Chicago should lose their ass embarrassingly in the courts. Progressives applauded the overturning of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law, where the courts ruled that immigration policy is clearly a constitutionally established exclusively federal power. If it is exclusively a federal power when progressives want it to be, then it is still exclusively a federal power when they don't. They don't get to choose what is constitutional and what is not by which party controls the stick.

 

[rugertoter]

Sorry, don't agree with Sanctuary Cities. It is not what our immigration laws are all about. The current laws need to be enforced, period.

 

[Dddrees]

Sorry, don't agree with Sanctuary Cities. It is not what our immigration laws are all about. The current laws need to be enforced, period.

Then maybe stricter enforcement should have been followed long ago, and no I don't mean just under Obama. This sh** has been going on for decades. And guess what it appears that not only democrats are to blame for it but there are many that should share in that blame.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I agree, but agriculture isn't the only area where illegal labor is used. Drive through a neighborhood a few weeks after storm damage. Every crew repairing homes looks like Mexicans. It may be that they're not illegal. But likely they are.

Especially on roofing crews. When it was time to replace my roof a couple of years go, I got an estimate from several roofers. One of them boasted that he's cheaper because he can pay his crew less. It seemed obvious he was implying that they're illegals. He boasted about how fast his "Mexicans" could put up a roof.







If there is any consistent jurisprudence, Chicago should lose their ass embarrassingly in the courts. Progressives applauded the overturning of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law, where the courts ruled that immigration policy is clearly a constitutionally established exclusively federal power. If it is exclusively a federal power when progressives want it to be, then it is still exclusively a federal power when they don't. They don't get to choose what is constitutional and what is not by which party controls the stick.

And do a better job too, so I'm told.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Here is an Internet Archive of Trump's immigration reform policy statement from August 16, 2015, according to the archive, it is the original policy statement, the first one posted online, about 2 months after he entered the race.

It includes TARIFFS as an option for "paying for the wall". Anyone who argues that tariffs were not part of this policy all along are not arguing from a factual basis (also known as makin' sh#? up. lol)

https://web.archive.org/web/20150816161349/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

 

[Thor]

The explicit threat of calling ICE and having the laborer deported alters that balance. When one party has a figurative "gun to their head", with the other party's finger on trigger, that is exploitive... I'm not talking about Marxist gibberish that highjacked the word.

I guess if you're in this country illegally, illegally working, employing illegals then you should expect to be exploited because another option is incarceration and exportation. These people are not immigrants, immigrants come to a country through their immigration policy; these people are criminals and deserve to be treated that way.

 

[SSGSAD]

Sorry, don't agree with Sanctuary Cities. It is not what our immigration laws are all about. The current laws need to be enforced, period.

^^^^^ THIS RIGHT HERE ^^^^^

I admit, I have NOT kept up, with this thread, and read as much, as I could this am .....

I did NOT see a post, about an "Illegal", who was being held, for ICE,

Somewhere on the west coast, I'll say Portland, just for fun, and they let him go .....

And then he raped an "elderly" woman .....

As said upthread, no illegal, no rape .....

No Sanctuary city, no RELEASE, no rape .....

JMHO ..... YMMV .....

 

[Kutnupe14]

The explicit threat of calling ICE and having the laborer deported alters that balance. When one party has a figurative "gun to their head", with the other party's finger on trigger, that is exploitive... I'm not talking about Marxist gibberish that highjacked the word.

Ok, let's say a bunch of suspected illegals are working in a field, someone calls ICE, and ICE shows up at the jobsite.... what happens then? How do you determine who is illegal?

 

[jamil]

And do a better job too, so I'm told.

Well. I didn't hire that guy. But the company I did hire also used Mexican labor. I think they all do. They did it fast. Not sure about better.

But about that guy. Why did he think boasting about how fast they can slap a roof on, and how much he can abuse his employees because they're illegal, would be a good selling point?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well. I didn't hire that guy. But the company I did hire also used Mexican labor. I think they all do. They did it fast. Not sure about better.

But about that guy. Why did he think boasting about how fast they can slap a roof on, and how much he can abuse his employees because they're illegal, would be a good selling point?

He wasn't abusing them, I imagine. He was paying the competitive wage amongst those willing to do that job based on all workers available. LOL

 

[SSGSAD]

Ok, let's say a bunch of suspected illegals are working in a field, someone calls ICE, and ICE shows up at the jobsite.... what happens then? How do you determine who is illegal?

How, do you "prove" you, are Legal ?????

 

[KLB]

I agree, but agriculture isn't the only area where illegal labor is used. Drive through a neighborhood a few weeks after storm damage. Every crew repairing homes looks like Mexicans. It may be that they're not illegal. But likely they are.

Especially on roofing crews. When it was time to replace my roof a couple of years go, I got an estimate from several roofers. One of them boasted that he's cheaper because he can pay his crew less. It seemed obvious he was implying that they're illegals. He boasted about how fast his "Mexicans" could put up a roof.







If there is any consistent jurisprudence, Chicago should lose their ass embarrassingly in the courts. Progressives applauded the overturning of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law, where the courts ruled that immigration policy is clearly a constitutionally established exclusively federal power. If it is exclusively a federal power when progressives want it to be, then it is still exclusively a federal power when they don't. They don't get to choose what is constitutional and what is not by which party controls the stick.

They should indeed lose in court. There is a long history of the Fed using funds to local governments to force policy changes. If they want to feed at the Fed teat they have to play by their rules

 

[Kutnupe14]

How, do you "prove" you, are Legal ?????

I don't have to prove I'm legal to anyone, unless I'm caught committing a crime, or my boss asks.

 

[OakRiver]

Maryland city mulling over idea to let undocumented residents vote | Fox News

I have a simple answer for that;
Maryland Constitution - Article I - Elective Franchise
"SEC. 9. Every person elected, or appointed, to any office of profit or trust, under this Constitution, or under the Laws, made pursuant thereto, shall, before he enters upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath, or affirmation: I, _______________, do swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of________________, according to the Constitution and Laws of this State, (and, if a Governor, Senator, Member of the House of Delegates, or Judge,) that I will not directly or indirectly, receive the profits or any part of the profits of any other office during the term of my acting as___________ (originally Article I, sec. 6, renumbered by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978)."

If someone is unwilling to follow the law of the land then that person's suitability for public office is in question.

Then maybe stricter enforcement should have been followed long ago, and no I don't mean just under Obama. This sh** has been going on for decades. And guess what it appears that not only democrats are to blame for it but there are many that should share in that blame.

Agreed. No time like the present to start working on enforcing our laws

Here is an Internet Archive of Trump's immigration reform policy statement from August 16, 2015, according to the archive, it is the original policy statement, the first one posted online, about 2 months after he entered the race.

It includes TARIFFS as an option for "paying for the wall". Anyone who argues that tariffs were not part of this policy all along are not arguing from a factual basis (also known as makin' sh#? up. lol)

https://web.archive.org/web/20150816161349/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

Unless Mexico writes a check periodically for the wall then they didn't pay for it

Ok, let's say a bunch of suspected illegals are working in a field, someone calls ICE, and ICE shows up at the jobsite.... what happens then? How do you determine who is illegal?

Expand the use of the I9 and E-Verify to document the status of your employees. Until then the employees should be able to produce their visa, green card, work authorization, or proof of citizenship

 

[KLB]

I have a simple answer for that;
Maryland Constitution - Article I - Elective Franchise
"SEC. 9. Every person elected, or appointed, to any office of profit or trust, under this Constitution, or under the Laws, made pursuant thereto, shall, before he enters upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath, or affirmation: I, _______________, do swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of________________, according to the Constitution and Laws of this State, (and, if a Governor, Senator, Member of the House of Delegates, or Judge,) that I will not directly or indirectly, receive the profits or any part of the profits of any other office during the term of my acting as___________ (originally Article I, sec. 6, renumbered by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978)."

If someone is unwilling to follow the law of the land then that person's suitability for public office is in question.

The article was about letting them vote in local elections, not run for office.